Case law

State v. Simpson

341 N.C. 316 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 8, 1995

Therefore, since defendant successfully elicited the same testimony through another witness clearly qualified in the field, we conclude that any error in excluding Landreth’s testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt … We do not find that Simmons dictates such a result, since under the facts of that case, the defendant was clearly not eligible for parole. Simmons is, therefore, inapplicable to the facts here.

State v. Carter

322 N.C. 709 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 28, 1988

The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which … A highly sophisticated set of rules, qualified by all sorts of ifs, ands, and buts and requiring the drawing of subtle nuances and hairline distinctions, may be the sort of heady stuff upon which the facile minds of lawyers

Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 2025

Laws 152, 196 (establishing 19 June 2020 as the effective date for Chapter 160D). -9-  DURHAM GREEN FLEA MARKET V. … Even if we assume that photographs can qualify as “written notice” under UDO § 15.2.1.A, the four blurry, black-and-white copies of photographs attached to the NOV and contained in the record on appeal cannot be said to

State v. Smith

328 N.C. 99 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1991

In Batson the Supreme Court established a three-part test for determining whether a defendant has established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination: *120 To establish such a case, the defendant first must show that … ” The district attorney’s objection to the question was sustained on grounds that the question did not relate to qualifying the jury.

State v. Dew

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 29, 2021

We concluded that “the evidence clearly show[ed] that [the] defendant was not charged three times with the same offense for the same act but was charged for three separate and distinct acts.” … Building on the Court of Appeals’ jurisprudence, we now take the opportunity to provide examples but not an exclusive list to further explain what can qualify as a distinct interruption: a distinct

State v. . Will

18 N.C. 121 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1834

And Second; This position being established, the killing of *Page 126 Baxter under the circumstances stated is but manslaughter in the prisoner. … It is true, there is a portion of the opinion of the Court which puts the slave entirely out of the pale of the law, and secures the master in a despotic immunity.

Arrington v. . Arrington

114 N.C. 151 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1894

Arrington are duly appointed and qualified executors thereof. The defendants, John P. Arrington, Mary Thorpe, Thomas Arrington, Samuel Arrington, A. H. … Generally this is not a matter of importance for, when established, constructive notice has the same effect as actual notice." 1 Beach Mod. Eq. Jur., 347.

Ward v. . Stow

17 N.C. 509 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1834

Convinced that we ought not to rely authoritatively and exclusively on thelast adjudication, we have deemed it an imperious duty, deliberately to investigate the argument by which it is supposed to be established. … It can scarcely be necessary to swell the list of authorities to which he has appealed, and which clearly sustain his po- *520 sitio».

Southern Railway Co. v. Board of Commissioners

148 N.C. 220 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 25, 1908

It is evident that he had given the questions arising upon the system of revenue and taxation established by the Constitution mature, anxious consideration. … It is clearly held in Broadnax v. Groom, 64 N. C., 245 , that a tax to provide for building bridges is for a special purpose, within the meaning of sec *240 tion 6.

Haywood v. . Wright

152 N.C. 421 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 27, 1910

On the facts established, the court below entered judgment as follows: That, under the will, and codicils thereto, of said Governor Thomas M. … This rule is qualified, or rather a different principle prevails, when a mixed fund, under a general residuary clause eo nomine is given to one for life, remainder over.

State v. Jennings

333 N.C. 579 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 4, 1993

Hudson, forensic pathologist and Chief Medical Examiner, was fully qualified to reach. However, to the extent that Dr. … Defendant thus cannot establish that she had an attorney-client relationship with Judge Harrell or that he was giving her legal advice for a proper purpose.

Smith v. Simpson

260 N.C. 601 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 11, 1963

The charge of the court was clearly based on the theory set out in plaintiff's pleadings. … The patrolman's recitation of McCants' narrative of events preceding the accident, to which plaintiff objected, was clearly incompetent as hearsay. Since McCants did not testify, it was not corroborative.

Buffalow v. Buffalow

22 N.C. 240 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1839

It was, then, to John Buffalow as a competent and confidential friend, that he might understand the whole case and be the better qualified to advise a defense or settlement. … There is no evidence to those points, and we can hardly imagine any sufficient to establish them.

State v. Jacobs

370 N.C. 661 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 6, 2018

.2d at 781-82 (noting that the witness “made reference in her testimony on at least two occasions to multiple rapes of the victim, which in the absence of evidence that they were committed by some other male, the jury clearly … In the case at bar, the majority has not applied this Court’s well- established principles of statutory construction, especially with regard to the essential word “specific,” that purposefully appears in N.C.G.S. § 8C-1

Gwathmey v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF ENVIR.

342 N.C. 287 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 8, 1995

Thus, this Court has recognized the public interests inherent in navigable waters and qualified the State’s ability to part with title to lands submerged by navigable waters with a presumption that legislative enactments … Thus, we are only limiting the statement there to the precedent established in those cases.

Marshall v. . Lovelass

1 N.C. 412 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1801

Moreover, the Legislature, in 1782, clearly expressed their determination that they would take no advantage of Cossart's alienage. … And although the king cannot *Page 352 be sued, yet his alienee may be, for he does not partake of his privileges or immunities.

State v. Brown

327 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 26, 1990

It was Craig’s understanding that Hopper would not go to jail and would receive an allowance until he got established in a new area. … The evidence was clearly relevant because it related to a matter elicited on direct examination. 1 Brandis on North Carolina Evidence § 42 (1988).

State Ex Rel. Martin v. Melott

320 N.C. 518 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 3, 1987

N.C. 525 , 187 S.E. 781 (1936): It is well settled in this State that the courts have the power, and it is their duty in proper cases, to declare an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional— but it must be plainly and clearly … Id. (10) He may contract with qualified persons to serve as hearing officers for specific assignments.

State v. Tolley

290 N.C. 349 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 14, 1976

The record clearly reflects that the trial judge was not inadvertent to the provisions of G.S. 15A-811 et seq. … Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and the Law of the Land Clause of Article I, Section 19 of the State Constitution. *364 “Due process of law guarantees respect for those personal immunities

State v. Harris

338 N.C. 211 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1994

Defendant also argues that the practice of death qualifying a jury violates his right to a fair trial. We have already held, however, that this practice is not unconstitutional. State v. … It is well established that counsel will be allowed wide latitude in the argument of hotly contested cases.