Case law

Alsop v. Southern Express Co.

104 N.C. 278 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1889

It is clearly a question for the jury, under the instructions of the court, in cases like this at bar, as it was in that, to determine, whether *Page 219 looking to the custom of business men generally, at the particular … But the interpretation contended for, that the words, "under existing laws," should be construed as qualifying the words "whenever tendered," instead of the word "forward" only, would lead — if the common law is correctly

Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. County of Clay

213 N.C. 698 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1938

corporation shall contract any debt, pledge its faith or loan its credit, nor shall any tax be levied or collected by any officers of the same except for the necessary expenses thereof, unless by a vote of the majority of the qualified … The law with respect to application of payment on debts is clearly established. The debtor, at the time of making payment, has a right to direct its application.

Connette v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2022

Marion General Hospital establishes a contrary principle, we reverse Byrd. … However, adhering to the principles of stare decisis, this Court should not disturb settled precedent that clearly defines the liability of doctors and nurses when treating or diagnosing patients.

Taylor v. Boger

289 N.C. 560 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 6, 1976

These facts clearly distinguish this case from Ward v. Wentz, swpra. … Adams was qualified to testify to plaintiff’s condition at the time of the trial and to answer the hypothetical question asked him.

Farris v. . R. R.

151 N.C. 484 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1909

Under the authorities cited, we think the evidence clearly sufficient to sustain the finding of defendant's negligence by the jury in response to the first issue, and that the negligent act of the defendants continued up … R. , 140 N.C. 252 , "It is further held that, negligence having been first established, facts and attendant circumstances may so qualify this obligation to look and listen as to require the question of contributory negligence

Lee v. . R. R.

180 N.C. 413 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 24, 1920

The duty to look and listen may be qualified by obstructions and other circumstances, and when these appear the question of contributory negligence is ordinarily for the jury. … These principles are established by Cooper v. R. R. , 140 N.C. 209 ; Inman v. R. R. , 149 N.C. 123 ; Farris v. R. R. , 151 N.C. 483 ; Fann v. R. R. , 155 N.C. 136 ; Johnson v. R. R. , 163 N.C. 431 ; Penninger v. R.

Manning v. Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.

188 N.C. 648 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 3, 1924

In 1879 the name of the Western Railroad Company was changed to the Cape Fear and Yadkin Valley Railway Company, and the latter succeeded to all the rights, powers, privileges, immunities and franchises of the former, and … Whether the purpose was to establish a trunk-line system does not clearly appear; but, however that may be, the statute was given a judicial construction, and that is the matter with which we are now concerned — not the alleged

LONG MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. Johnson

264 N.C. 12 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 17, 1965

This language clearly contemplates a rental paid periodically in cash or in commodities or services having a monetary value. … The retailers in this case do not qualify as contractors within the meaning of G.S. 105-164.3(16), nor are they servicemen or repairmen-within the meaning of the proviso of G.S. 105-164.3(15), which was repealed June 20,

State v. McKinney

361 N.C. 53 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 2006

[and] must be clearly shown.” Robinson, 430 F.2d at 1143 . During the suppression hearing in the instant case, the prosecutor raised and properly preserved the issue of defendant’s standing to contest the search. … The “excise and re-examine” corollary to the independent source rule, as explained by Justice Powell in Giordano , qualifies the cardinal principle that if “information used to obtain [a search] warrant was procured through

Youngblood v. N. State Ford Truck Sales

321 N.C. 380 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1988

The evidence clearly shows that plaintiff made his living as a salesman of Kansas Jack equipment, not as an instructor. … We find this evidence insufficient to establish an independent calling in this case. See Askew v.

State v. . Jim

48 N.C. 348 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1856

These remarks are made, not with a view of intimating that the rule is not too well established here to be abolished without the aid of the Legislature, but simply for the purpose of defining its limits and of tracing it … Our investigation satisfies us that the rule of exclusion, because of pecuniary interest, has not boon applied to a case like the present, and we are clearly of the opinion, that the principle of the rule is not applicable

State v. Robinson

346 N.C. 586 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 24, 1997

SBI Special Agent Eugene Bishop was tendered and qualified as an expert in the field of forensic firearm identification and toolmark identification. … Creed was tendered and qualified as a medical expert. Dr.

Bond v. . Beverly

152 N.C. 56 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 2, 1910

Slaughter and Blount Willoughby his executors, and who were duly qualified as such. … The attempted conveyances by Harrell to Beverly and Young, though we may treat them as void, as deeds, in determining the question we are now considering, clearly establish the privity between them and Harrell, and their

State v. White

322 N.C. 770 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 28, 1988

The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that “[t]he evidence clearly demonstrates that the officers’ discovery of the items of stolen property listed in the incident reports was not inadvertent.” 87 N.C. … There was sufficient evidence presented in defendant’s case to establish his guilt.

Powe v. Odell

312 N.C. 410 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1984

The statute also clearly discriminates amongst similarly situated plaintiffs. … Are insurance companies really different because they are required by law to establish reserves whereas giant corporations which are self insureds establish reserves because it is good business practice?

Jones v. . Crittenden

4 N.C. 55 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1814

Amongst the important objects which the people of the United States designed to accomplish by adopting the Constitution, that of establishing justice, holds a conspicuous rank. … That a new remedy given by the Legislature should be qualified and limited in any way they deem expedient seems perfectly unexceptionable. Besides, to whom is the indulgence extended?

Donavant v. Hudspeth

318 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 29, 1986

This phraseology does not clearly indicate that Dr. Hudspeth had expressed such a concern to the author of the report; in fact, if it suggests anything, it is that a concern was not expressed by Dr. … Cordell’s bias in favor of the defendant was clearly established by his admission that they were long term friends and co-workers.

State v. Garcia

358 N.C. 382 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 25, 2004

The relevant question at trial, therefore, was whether defendant’s actions led to her death and, if so, did such actions constitute the commission of a violent crime that qualifies as an underlying felony for purposes of … The majority then explains that case law has also established that the State neéd not choose between “theories” of its case prior to trial.

State v. Alston

294 N.C. 577 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 17, 1978

Certainly this witness was better qualified to express an opinion as to the subject matter of the challenged evidence than the jury. … Our examination of this record shows that the court clearly and correctly instructed the jury that the weight to be given the evidence was a matter solely for determination by it. Graham v.

State v. Meadows

272 N.C. 327 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 12, 1968

Under Miranda , it seems clear an involuntary or not properly qualified confession or admission may not be used as evidence for any purpose. … Clearly the investigation was not the custodial interrogation referred to in Escobedo and Miranda .