Case law

Garysburg Manufacturing Co. v. Board of Commissioners

196 N.C. 744 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1929

R. v. Commissioners, 188 N. C., p. 265; Wolfenden v. Commissioners, 152 N. C., p. 83; Commissioners v. Murphy, 107 N. C., p. 36; Wade v. Commissioners, 74 N. C., p. 81.” Lumber Co. v. Smith, 146 N. … C., 199 ; Land Co., v. Smith, 151 N. C., 70 ; Hart v. Commissioners, 192 N. C., 161 ; Whitley v. Washington, 193 N. C., 240 ; Caldwell Co. v. Doughton, 195 N. C., 62 ; Stanley v. Supervisors, 121 U.

Wilson v. . Board of Aldermen of Charlotte

74 N.C. 748 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1876

Pipkin v. … In Pullen v.

Nc Board of Pharmacy v. Commission

627 S.E.2d 466 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 2006

Plaintiff (NC Board of Pharmacy) shall have up to and including the 9th day of January 2006 to file and serve its response with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of January 2006."

Hoke County Board of Education v. State

358 N.C. 605 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 30, 2004

See Part V of this opinion. II. … Dist. v.

Board of Commissioners of McDowell County v. Board of Commissioners of Forsyth County

121 N.C. 295 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 15, 1897

The chairman of the plaintiff Board of Commissioners procured a physician and board and nursing at a private house for Beck, until he was able to be removed, when the plaintiff Board ordered him to be carried to Forsyth county … The question was considered and decided by this Court in Commissioners of Burke County v. Commissioners of Buncombe County, 103 N. C., 520 .

Kirby v. Stokes County Board of Education

230 N.C. 619 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 28, 1949

Store v. Ins. Co., 208 N.C. 267 , 180 S.E. 63 . “One of the essential elements of every contract is mutuality of agreement.” Croom v. Lumber Co., 182 N.C. 217 , 108 S.E. 735 . … Croom v. Lumber Co., supra. See also Dodds v. Trust Co., 205 N.C. 153 , 110 S.E. 652 ; Sides v. Tidwell, 216 N.C. 480 , 5 S.E. 2d 316 ; Richardson v. Storage Co., 223 N.C. 344 , 26 S.E. 2d 897 .

State Board of Education v. Remick

160 N.C. 562 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1912

On 1 September, 1912, the State Board of Education agreed to sell to E. C. … Prior to chapter 137, Laws 1887, now Revisal, 2909, it was held in Land Co. v. Board of Education, 101 N. C., 39 , tbat there must be evidence dehors tbe deed tbat tbe recitals in tbe sheriff’s tax deed are true.

Board of Drainage Commissioners v. Credle

182 N.C. 442 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 9, 1921

C., 183 , and Comrs. v. Lewis, 174 N. C., 528 , are, therefore, irrelevant.' Plaintiff contends that the State Treasurer is treasurer of this district. … This case is not like Comrs. v. Davis, ante, 140, upon a somewhat similar question.

Wilson County Board of Education v. Lamm

276 N.C. 487 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 15, 1970

His statement under such circumstances was competent as an admission of the Board. Stone v. Guion, 222 N.C. 548 , 23 S.E. 2d 907 ; McBainy v. Clark, 4 N.C. *492 698; Stansbury, N. C. Evidence § 167 (2d ed. 1963). … Browning, Superintendent of Schools and Secretary of the Board from 1945 to 1967, who testified that in 1947 he first discovered that the plaintiff had no deed for the property in question.

Steele ex rel. Trotter v. Brown

254 N.C. 677 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 10, 1961

The assignments of error by defendant Brown in this case are identical with his assignments of error in the Stockwell case, with the exception that here there is no assignment of error to the evidence. … Upon authority of the Stockwell case, ante 662, 119 S.E. 2d 795 , we hold that the trial court properly overruled defendant Brown’s motion for a judgment of involuntary nonsuit renewed at the close of all the evidence.

McLean v. Durham County Board of Elections

222 N.C. 6 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 23, 1942

Bunch v. Comrs., 159 N. C., 335 , 74 S. E., 1048 ; Discount Corp. v. Motor Co., 190 N. C., 157 , 129 S. E., 414 ; S. v. Kelly, 186 N. C., 365 , 119 S. E., 755 ; Story v. Comrs., 184 N. C., 336 , 114 S. … Uhl, 155 Cal., 776 , 103 Pac., 181 ; Ex Parte, S. v. ex rel. Bragg, 197 So., 32 ; S. ex rel. Landis v. Carson, 154 So., 150 ; Koelsch v. Girard, 35 Pac. (2d), 816 ; S. v. Carrington, 190 N. W., 390 ; Whitney v.

Prichard v. Board of Commissioners of Morganton

126 N.C. 908 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 14, 1900

White v. Commissioners , 90 N.C. 439 ; Manuel v. Commissioners , 98 N.C. 9 . … Cited: Bell v. Commissioners , 127 N.C. 91 ; McIlhenny v. Wilmington, ibid. , 149; Moody v. State Prison , 128 N.C. 16 ; Peterson v. Wilmington , 130 N.C. 77 ; Jones v. Commissioners, ibid. , 452; Hull v.

Moss ex rel. Moss v. Brown

199 N.C. 189 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1930

White v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 536 ; Construction Co. v. R. R., 184 N. C., 179 . “In Bank v. Rochamora, 193 N. … McCall v. Lumber Co., 196 N. C., at p. 602. .

Overton v. Goldsboro City Board of Education

304 N.C. 312 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1981

Thompson v. Wake County Board of Education, 292 N.C. at 410 , 233 S.E. 2d at 541 . … However, the Court of Appeals indicated in Thompson v. Wake County Board of Education, 31 N.C.

Gaston Board of Realtors, Inc. v. Harrison

311 N.C. 230 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1984

The Board maintains that a contract between the Board and its members is formed by the Code of Ethics and the bylaws of the group. See Bright Belt Warehouse Association v. … The Board is not aided by its contention that jurisdiction exists by virtue of the “contract” between the parties. In Bright Belt Warehouse Association v.

Huff v. Northampton County Board of Education

259 N.C. 75 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1963

In the case of Smith v. Board of Education, 241 N.C. 305 , 84 S.E. 2d 903 , a 14-year-old pupil on a school bus was assaulted by another pupil. … G.S. 143-291 through 143-300.1 * * Fields v.

Board of Education v. Town of Henderson

126 N.C. 689 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 29, 1900

It will be seen that the act of 1899 does not undertake to "abolish" the school board of education. … Cited: Davison v. Land Co., post , 709; Board of Education v. Henderson , 127 N.C. 8 ; Directors v. Asheville , 128 N.C. 251 ; Bearden v. Fullam , 129 N.C. 479 ; School Directors v. Asheville , 137 N.C. 507 ; S. v.

Southern Railway Co. v. Board of Commissioners

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

In Board of Education v. Commissioners, 137 N. … We are not inadvertent to tbe fact tbat this conclusion in this last respect is not in harmony with what was said in Board of Education v. Board of Commissioners, 137 N. C., 310 .

Brown v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad

208 N.C. 50 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1935

Lumber Co. v. Finance Co., 204 N. C., 285 , 168 S. … Timber Co. v. Insurance Co., 192 N. C., 115 , 133 S. E., 424 . See Lunceford v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Association, 190 N. C., 314 , 129 S. E., 805 . The judgment is Affirmed.

Crawford v. Wayne County Board of Education

275 N.C. 354 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 18, 1969

In Brown v. … Huff v. Board of Education, 259 N.C. 75 , 130 S.E. 2d 26 . The claimant in the Huff case was 17 years of age.