Case law

State v. Southern Railway Co.

145 N.C. 495 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1907

Whether tbis rule is of universal application, or will in extreme circumstances admit of exception when justice would otherwise be defeated, we need notdeeide, as tbe principle thus established is clearly applicable to tbe … In this particular that case and this one are clearly distinguishable.

State v. Deanes

323 N.C. 508 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 8, 1988

Farmer approached the child as an “authority figure,” pointing to evidence *518 tending to show she established a friendly rapport with the child. … The record clearly shows the trial judge’s decision was reasoned and that he did not abuse his discretion in finding this *524 witness incompetent to testify, and thus unavailable. State v.

State v. Belton

318 N.C. 141 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 29, 1986

Clearly, defendant was an active participant in the crimes committed against Graham by Rich. … In the quest for an impartial and qualified jury, Negro and white, Protestant and Catholic, are alike subject to being challenged without cause.

State v. Basden

339 N.C. 288 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 30, 1994

Pearsall clearly and unequivocally stated she could not impose the death penalty even though she acknowledged some crimes were bad enough to warrant capital punishment. Q. . . . … Therefore, we hold the trial court did not abdicate its responsibility for seating qualified jurors by asking venirepersons whether they felt they were qualified.

State v. Tucker

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 2023

For each of the potential jurors at issue here, the trial court clearly ruled that no prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination had been established. … Defendant has failed to establish that he qualifies for a statutory exception to the mandatory procedural bar, and his argument that Burke is applicable to the present case is unavailing.

Allison v. . Davidson

17 N.C. 79 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1831

and after dissolution, each partner has a lien on the effects for his share, and each is, to as the funds in his hands, a trustee for the others for their shares, made several by the dissolution, This proposition must be qualified … The others are not made parties for the sake of relief against them ; but because they were necessary parties, against whom the partnership was to be established, and between whom the division of profits was to be made.

State Ex Rel. Greene v. Owen

125 N.C. 212 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 21, 1899

An examination of the constitutional history of the State, we think, will show conclusively that the principles so clearly enunciated in Hoke v. … This is true; but we are compelled to hold that it is practically re-established by chap. 732, ratified on March 7, 1899. The new.

State v. Nobles

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 2020

LaBuff, 658 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting the argument that this factor “could be established by demonstrating eligibility rather than actual receipt of benefits”). … We are of the view that a question as basic as jurisdiction is not an “independent, distinct, substantive matter of exemption, immunity or defense” and ought not to be regarded

State v. Cobb

Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 6, 2022

set forth in establishing the checking station. … Further, the trial court found that all vehicles were stopped pursuant to the established plan.

State v. Morgan

359 N.C. 131 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2004

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying Agent Garrett as an expert. This assignment of error is overruled. … Defendant complains that the trial court erred in permitting the jury to be death qualified.

State v. Nobles

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 2020

LaBuff, 658 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting the argument that this factor “could be established by demonstrating eligibility rather than actual receipt of benefits”). … We are of the view that a question as basic as jurisdiction is not an “independent, distinct, substantive matter of exemption, immunity or defense” and ought not to be regarded

State v. Collington

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 25, 2020

Had defendant’s “appellate counsel . . . argued [in Collington I] that plain error was established pursuant to Pakulski, . . . … MOODY: –as well as an instruction on reasonable doubt and the effect of the immunity granted to Mr. Chambers. COURT: Yes, sir, I’ll do all that. What about you?

Washington v. Cline

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 22, 2024

This Court held that his common law claims, which were barred by sovereign immunity, were not adequate remedies. Id. at 338. … Corum made the point most clearly, mooring this Court’s power to craft remedies to “the nature of constitutional government.” Corum, 330 N.C. at 788.

State v. Brown

315 N.C. 40 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 10, 1985

We find that the State has clearly satisfied this standard. … We believe the evidence here clearly supports the court’s finding of this aggravating factor.

State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Edmisten

294 N.C. 598 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 17, 1978

This is clearly best for the consumers of gas. … In my opinion, it clearly does not.

Woodhouse v. Bd. of Com'rs of Town of Nags Head

299 N.C. 211 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1980

Petitioners proceeded to follow the procedures outlined in Article IX in order to qualify for a conditional use permit. … exclusively with PUDs and found in section 9.01 D: PUDs shall be appropriately located with respect to intended functions, to the pattern and timing of development existing . . . and to public and private facilities, existing or clearly

Power Co. v. . Clay County

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.

Cooper v. Berger

371 N.C. 799 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 21, 2018

Here, the Governor may select his nominees from a virtually unlimited pool of qualified people. … McCrory clearly holds that the appointments clause refers only to constitutional officers, not to statutory ones. See 368 N.C. at 644, 781 S.E.2d at 255.

Gilchrist v. . Buie

21 N.C. 346 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1836

It is said, however, that the vendors claimed each an undivided fourth part, and that establishes what was meant by their claim. … But it is clearly otherwise. If the plaintiff’s bill had been dismissed, it would have been informal to cancel the agreement in the suit.

Wilson v. . Taylor

154 N.C. 211 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 22, 1911

Under the Bankrupt Act, the trustee qualifies by giving his bond and having the same approved by the referee. … But in any view of the testimony, even if construed most favorably for the defendant, she had knowledge of facts and circumstances from which the law clearly implied (219) notice.