Case law

State v. Rollinson

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 16, 2022

See An Act to Establish Procedure for Waiver of the Right to a Jury Trial in Criminal Cases in Superior Court, S.L. 2015-289, § 1, 2015 N.C. Sess. … See An Act to Establish Procedure  STATE V.

Hood Ex Rel. North Carolina Bank & Trust Co. v. North Carolina Bank & Trust Co.

209 N.C. 367 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 26, 1936

Brand qualified as executors of the estate of said decedent. *Page 370 "3. R. A. Brand died leaving and surviving him the following children, to wit: Robert A. … used, refers, of course, to where the stock was owned by a deceased person whose estate is in course of administration and refers back to `executors, administrators,' `competent to act and hold the stock in his own name,' clearly

Smith v. . R. R.

114 N.C. 729 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1894

II, 1464) speaks of the duty which is due to persons lying on the track in connection with a child or an animal, he very clearly did not intend to say that when a drunken man is not discovered he is to be absolved from the … The doctrine, however, was qualified by the ruling in Davies v.

Willowmere Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Hous.

370 N.C. 553 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 2, 2018

“[A]n association may have standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy.” … As a member of the plaintiff association and as the party that was clearly intended to benefit from the two-thirds approval requirement in the bylaws, Crescent was entitled to raise the association’s failure to comply

State v. Rollinson

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 16, 2022

See An Act to Establish Procedure for Waiver of the Right to a Jury Trial in Criminal Cases in Superior Court, S.L. 2015-289, § 1, 2015 N.C. Sess. … See An Act to Establish Procedure  STATE V.

Veach v. BACON AMERICAN CORPORATION

266 N.C. 542 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 2, 1966

In our opinion, and we so hold, plaintiff’s evidence does not establish his contributory negligence so clearly that no other reasonable inference may be drawn therefrom. Swaney v. Steel Co., supra. … Indeed, a qualified expert could have testified to his opinion concerning the condition of Exhibit 3 on March 11, 1961, and as to what caused the pins to break, if they did break, only upon the hypothesis that the jury found

Hallyburton v. Slagle.

132 N.C. 947 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 11, 1903

Indeed, it has been said to have been fully established as a principle, by the best authority, that the doctrine of estoppel applies to conveyances without warranty where it appears, by the deed, that the parties intended … This very clearly proves what is affirmed, and what estoppels arise out of a bargain and sale.” In Cuthrell v. Hawkins, 98 N. C., 205 , this Court, citing Moore v. Willis, 9 N.

Thomas Ex Rel. Thomas v. Clay

187 N.C. 778 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 21, 1924

Burton qualified as executor and also as trustee, and acted and continued to act as such executor and trustee until his death, on or about 1 November, 1921; that thereafter the defendant E. S. … a court of equity and .claim and establish their right to the fund and to the trust, it will be void for uncertainty.” 25 R.

State v. Jerrett

309 N.C. 239 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 27, 1983

Maxwell, supra, after acknowledging that a defendant must show identifiable prejudice, the Court qualified this acknowledgment with the following language: Nevertheless, at times a procedure employed by the State involves … and clearly alleged in the indictment.

State v. White

343 N.C. 378 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 13, 1996

Defendant has shown neither an abuse of discretion nor prejudice, both of which are required to establish reversible error relating to voir dire. See, e.g., State v. … ) excusal by the trial court of a prospective juror likely qualified to be seated.

State v. Stegmann

286 N.C. 638 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1975

Error in admitting her testimony is harmless since Ruth Kendall's good reputation was well established by other admissible evidence. State v. Killian, 173 N.C. 792 , 92 S.E. 499 (1917); accord, United States v. … The improper admission of this evidence was clearly prejudicial to the defendant.

State v. . Smoak

213 N.C. 79 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1938

The admissibility of evidence of previous poisonings to show motive and scienter is most clearly brought out by the case of People v. Gosden , 56 P.2d Ed.), 211 (Calif., 1936). … If he answers "Yes," then the witness can of his own accord qualify his testimony as to what extent the character of the party attacked is good or bad.' Clark, C. J. , in Edwards v. Price , 162 N.C. 244 .

State v. Kimbrell

151 N.C. 702 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 24, 1909

I would always prefer to agree with my associates than to dissent from their views, for many reasons, among others, because they are better qualified than I am to decide what the law is; but in this case I am so constrained … C., 509 , are sufficiently discussed by the Attorney-General and their inapplicability to the present ease clearly demonstrated. In State v. Harrell, 107 N.

Zander v. Orange Cnty.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2020

ORANGE COUNTY Opinion of the Court and all impact fee receipts in its possession, custody, or control, for any fee payment that would qualify the feepayer as a member of the refund … [and] clearly falls within the type of claims contemplated by Orange County’s enabling legislation,” citing 987 N.C. Sess.

Nelson v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

157 N.C. 194 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 27, 1911

case is of general importance, and the principle announced will determine, in this State, the right of all benefit societies and fraternal orders, which provide for the payment of benefits to sick or disabled members, to establish … operation and effect of prior decisions, limiting tbe power of contracting parties to provide a tribunal for tbe adjustment of possible differences without a resort to courts of law; and tbe rule is essentially modified and qualified

State v. . Hightower

187 N.C. 300 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 27, 1924

But when this is denied, the defendant is clearly disadvantageously circumstanced before the jury. … To hold otherwise would be to establish a rule at once hazardous to the banking business and perilous to the depositing public, and we think at variance with the intent of the Legislature.

Whitley v. . Arenson

219 N.C. 121 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1941

The word "heirs," in such a case is not a word of purchase carrying title to the heirs, but a word of inheritance qualifying the estate of the grantee. Hunter v. Watson , 12 Cal. 363 , 73 Am. Dec., 543 . … It is therefore necessary to establish rules, and equally important that they be uniformly observed, so that those who are called upon to advise may safely give opinions on titles to real property. Campbell v.

State Ex Rel. North Carolina Utilities Commission v. Municipal Corporations

243 N.C. 193 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 14, 1955

Likewise, any rates or charges established by the Commission “shall be deemed just and reasonable.” G.S. 62-123; In re Utilities Co., 179 N.C. 151 , 101 S.E. 619 . … The Halifax Paper Corporation is the only industry in North Carolina in the area served by Vepco which can qualify under Schedule No. 11.

Blankenship v. Bartlett

363 N.C. 518 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 28, 2009

Dimmock are licensed attorneys who are qualified to run for the office of superior court judge in their respective districts, 10B and 10C. Plaintiff Frank D. … Stated simply, once the legal right to vote has been established, equal protection requires that the right be administered equally. See Barbier v.

State v. Corbett

309 N.C. 382 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 27, 1983

Defendant has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a change of venue or special venire. … If the charge as a whole is correct and presents the law fairly and clearly to the jury, merely technical errors or slight misstatements will not mandate retrial. E.g., State v.