Case law

State v. Strickland

290 N.C. 169 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 17, 1976

The elements of premeditation and deliberation in a first degree murder case “are not usually susceptible to direct proof, but must be established from the circumstances surrounding the homicide.” State v. … I have to qualify that statement.

State v. . Benton

19 N.C. 196 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1836

This position seems to us clearly untenable. It is upheld by no analogous principle, warranted by no adjudged case, and opposed by positive authority. … When a challenge propter affectum is made, the finding against it establishes only that he is not favourable to the other party, for Lord Coke lays it down, (Co.

STATE EX REL. UTILITIES COM'N v. Edmisten

242 S.E.2d 862 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 17, 1978

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

State v. Reid

335 N.C. 647 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 4, 1994

Defendant also argues that the trial judge did not clearly set out the difference between perfect and imperfect self-defense. … The principles regarding the law of self-defense are well established.

Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings Yarn

308 N.C. 85 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 5, 1983

Because of the italicized portions of findings 6 and 8, it does appear that the Commission thought that in order successfully to claim against defendant, claimant’s last employer, claimant must establish that her exposure … The question now clearly *101 before us for the first time is whether a textile worker’s chronic obstructive lung disease may be an occupational disease under G.S. 97-53(13) when it is caused in part by the worker’s on-the-job

State v. . Yearwood

178 N.C. 813 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 20, 1919

A receiver was appointed, but Tabor again went to Mills and agreed to pay him, and the receiver did not qualify. … of discrimination, and has been trained or tested in the tracking of human beings, and it appears that the dog so trained and tested was laid on the trail, whether visible or not, at a point where the circumstances tend clearly

State v. Morgan

299 N.C. 191 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1980

Hudson testified on behalf of the state as an expert witness qualified in the field of forensic pathology. … “Now, Members of the Jury, bearing in mind that the burden of proof rests upon the State to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt, I charge that if you find *210 from this evidence that the killing

State v. Fisher

318 N.C. 512 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 18, 1986

As to the third McZorn factor, the record clearly shows that Officer Hutcheson was present with Officer Jones at the defendant’s initial interrogation. … The case sub judice is factually distinguishable from Harbison in that the defendant’s counsel never clearly admitted guilt.

In re Cain

1 N.C. 141 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 22, 1864

and seizures shall not-be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized ’ ’ as qualifying … The case clearly falls under the 10th section.- ¿The petitioner does no-t.show that he was committed for a crime, blit that he is restrained of his liberty as a conscript.

State v. Steen

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2020

At trial the State’s evidence clearly established that the garden hoe was used to murder the grandfather, but the evidence did not specifically link the garden hoe to the attack on Sandra, defendant’s mother. … Here, the legislative history and spirit of the act clearly demonstrate that the “deadly weapon” requirement refers to an external instrument, not a defendant’s hands, feet, or other body parts.

Johnson v. . R. R.

163 N.C. 431 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 22, 1913

The duty of the traveler arising under this rule is not always an absolute one, but may be so qualified by attendant circumstances as to require the issue as to his contributory negligence, by not taking proper measures for … The second exception is clearly untenable. It was irrelevant to the controversy that the witness C. C.

Nelson v. . R. R.

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

general importance, and the principle announced will determine, in this State, the right of all benefit societies and fraternal orders, which *Page 159 provide for the payment of benefits to sick or disabled members, to establish … operation and effect of prior decisions, limiting the power of contracting parties to provide a tribunal for the adjustment of possible differences without a resort to courts of law; and the rule is essentially modified and qualified

State v. Morgan

299 N.C. 151 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1980

Hudson testified on behalf of the state as an expert witness qualified in the field of forensic pathology. … "Now, Members of the Jury, bearing in mind that the burden of proof rests upon the State to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt, I charge that if you find from this evidence that the killing of the

State v. Williams

275 N.C. 77 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1969

The petitioner argues, however, that a jury qualified under such standards must necessarily be biased as well with respect to a defendant’s guilt, and that his conviction must accordingly be reversed because of the denial … It would seem his AWOL status could be inferred clearly from evidence admitted without objection.

Scarborough v. Calypso Veneer Company

244 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 2, 1956

we are of the opinion that the rights granted under the contract will continue until they are cut over once, or the right to cut expires by limitation as to time. * * * "The instrument conveys to the grantees a base or qualified … It did not clearly appear from the testimony that the defendant entered as assignee under this deed; but the Court assumed this to be true.

S. Env't Law Ctr. v. N.C. Railroad Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 13, 2021

Parties’ Arguments is established as a staff agency of the General Assembly. … As a result, certain relevant statutory provisions and the decisions of the Attorney General and the State Ethics Commission, which clearly constitute persuasive authority that sheds light on the question

Parish v. Hill

350 N.C. 231 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 9, 1999

Va. 548, 552 , 408 S.E.2d 300, 304 (1991) (where the West Virginia Supreme Court held that the statutory language “clearly suggests that the emergency driver is accountable only for reckless acts or gross negligence”). … On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the City and Officer Woodall were entitled to summary judgment based on sovereign immunity, except for negligence claims based on N.C.G.S

Cheape v. Town of Chapel Hill

320 N.C. 549 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 3, 1987

These factors clearly distinguish the Chapel Hill Act from the legislation found unconstitutional in Taylor v. Racing Association, 241 N.C. 80 , 84 S.E. 2d 390 (1954), a case relied upon by the plaintiffs. … Accordingly, while the agreement might establish Fraser as an agent of the Town for the limited purpose of authorizing minor change orders, there is nothing in the agreement that establishes the Town as an agent of Fraser

State v. . R. R.

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

Whether this rule is of universal application, or will in extreme circumstances admit of exception when justice would otherwise be defeated, we need not decide, as the principle thus established is clearly applicable to the … In this particular that case and this one are clearly distinguishable.

State v. Durham

141 N.C. 741 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 1906

By his abuse, the officer divests himself of his official character and immunity from attack. … This is clearly established by the great 'weight of authority and this court practically stands alone in asserting the contrary doctrine.