Case law

Moore v. . Bell

191 N.C. 305 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1926

IV, sec. 2) which provides that `the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.'" S. v. Gallop , 126 N.C. 979 . … The principle is clearly and forcefully enunciated in recent opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition to the authorities cited by Justice Adams, see New Jersey v.

Galloway v. Board of Education of Brunswick County

184 N.C. 245 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 25, 1922

On plaintiff's other ground of impeachment, and as we understand tbe record, it appears that tbe first election in these proceedings was under Private Laws 1921, cb. 251, and tbis being a special act attempting to establish … C., 219 , tbe Court has held that “unless a statute from its language, purpose, and context clearly requires tbe contrary, tbe term levy,’ when applied to question of taxation of tbe kind signified, tbe levying or imposition

Doe ex rel. Connolly v. Holt

332 N.C. 90 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 17, 1992

A careful examination of the circumstances underlying these cases establishes that in these cases, each state supreme court denied recovery because of parent-child immunity, despite the intentional acts of the parent. … Though the majority says otherwise, it is clearly recognizing an exception to the immunity rule, and an exception to the rule by any other name is still an exception.

Smith v. School Trustees.

141 N.C. 143 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 17, 1906

And the principle of uniformity is established and required by section 9 of this article. … (c) Tbe act establishing a graded school for the town of Kernersville is construed to contain a positive direction to establish one school in wbicb the children of each race are *160 to be taught in separate building's and

Thomas v. State Board of Elections

256 N.C. 401 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 1962

For example: The offices of the Executive Department of the State government were established and the terms fixed by the provisions of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of North Carolina, which reads as follows: … The petitioner contends that his petition for a writ of mandamus is clearly supported by the provisions of G.S. 163-7, reading as follows: “FOR VACANCIES IN STATE OFFICES. — Whenever any vacancies shall exist by reason of

Claybrook v. Board of Commissioners

117 N.C. 456 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1895

When an elector is allowed to deposit his ballot, the burden is on one who questions its validity to show, by a preponderance of testimony, the ’truth of such facts or circumstances as are relied upon to establish the disqualification … The purchaser should not be required to do more than it was the duty of the county board to do, perliminary to announcing the result, — ascer *462 tain that the sense of a majority of the voters was clearly ascertained to

Willis v. Duke Power Co.

291 N.C. 19 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1976

United States, supra, relied on by the Court of Appeals, is clearly distinguishable on its facts. … Although not a privilege, the exception is a “qualified immunity” and extends to all materials prepared “in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s consultant, surety

Wood v. Town of Oxford

97 N.C. 227 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1887

It may determine and establish their purpose, and enlarge or modify their powers and authority from time to time; and it may create new ones, prescribing their powers and authority, as public necessity and convenience may … Now, it is clearly one of the declared purposes of the statute (Acts 1885, ch. 116), to authorize certain incorporated towns to make "donations" in the way prescribed, to the railroad company, the defendant, the Oxford and

Heritage Village Church & Missionary Fellowship, Inc. v. State

299 N.C. 399 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1980

We affirm the Court of Appeals' holding that the partiality of the qualified exemption provided by section 75.7(a)(1) works an unconstitutional "establishment" of religion. … This conclusion is clearly incorrect.

Hailey v. City of Winston-Salem

196 N.C. 17 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 12, 1928

S., 2832 (Art. 16) that any city shall have the right to acquire, establish, and operate . . . schools. … Necessary buildings are an integral factor in the maintenance of the school system and their construction under the facts here presented is clearly a municipal purpose.

Moseley v. Hendricks

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 22, 2025

Hendricks—to “clearly establish[ ] the lack of any triable issue of fact by the record properly before the court.” Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 296 N.C. 467, 469–70 (1979). … In contributory negligence cases, then, summary judgment is foreclosed unless the evidence “so clearly establishes [the plaintiff’s] own negligence as one of the proximate causes of his injury that no other reasonable inference

Blue v. Board of Trustees of Vass Graded School District

187 N.C. 431 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 19, 1924

In case a majority of the qualified voters at the election shall vote in favor of the tax, the district shall be deemed enlarged as so proposed. (C. S., 5530, revised.)” … Under article 6, dealing principally with the establishment and consolidation and enlargement of districts, etc., including the adoption of a county-wide plan, as contained in section 73a, it is clearly contemplated that

In Re Appeal of McElwee

304 N.C. 68 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 6, 1981

We think the use of sales of similarly used land by Wilkes County was clearly improper. … Hoots qualified his answer with this addendum: “I based that opinion on the market and the production of the timber land in Wilkes County — the market value and what the timber will bring on the stump.” Clearly, Mr.

Humphries v. . Edwards

164 N.C. 154 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 3, 1913

When the facts are admitted, or otherwise established, what is probable cause becomes a pure question of law. Swaim v. Stafford , 25 N.C. 289 ; Moore v. Bank, supra . … There were no qualifying words used by Humphries. Besides, he had a deadly weapon, which could have been used effectively in an instant.

Hailey v. . Winston-Salem

196 N.C. 17 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 12, 1928

S., 2832 (Art. 16) that any city shall have the right to acquire, establish, and operate . . . schools. … Necessary buildings are an integral factor in the maintenance of the school system and their construction under the facts here presented is clearly a municipal purpose.

Powell v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.

178 N.C. 243 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 15, 1919

C., 367 , and authorities cited), this right and immunity only exists for the public benefit and may not be used or sanctioned by contract or ordinance of the municipality in favor of a private or public service corporation … satisfactorily appear, under permanent physical conditions of the kind presented here and in the absence of any definite testimony showing, meantime, a substantial change in values, we think that the opinion of these witnesses, qualified

Gill v. Board of Commissioners

160 N.C. 176 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 7, 1912

In a proceeding of this character, tbe burden is on tbe relator to clearly establish tbe right sought to be enforced.” … Does the term embrace women, or only men and qualified voters or electors?

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Powell

217 N.C. 495 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 1940

It seems to us that the express provisions of the act itself, without further argument, are sufficient to clearly designate the Unemployment Compensation Commission an agency of the State. … He must not only resort to the remedies that the legislature has established but he must do so at the time and in the manner that the statute and proper regulations provide. Mfg. Co. v. Comrs., 196 N.

North Carolina National Bank v. Stone

263 N.C. 384 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 15, 1965

This Court reversed, sending the case back for a hearing on the petition. .In Joyce , the surviving spouse (wife) qualified as executrix and at the same time two of the testator’s sons qualified as executors. … ‘Clearly that time is allowed by the law to enable the widow to make an examination in to the value of the estate, the debts and liabilities, and for her to come to an intelligent conclusion as to the course she should pursue

Hammond v. McRae

182 N.C. 747 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 29, 1921

for necessary expenses, it has been repeatedly held that tbe term “qualified voters therein” means all persons resident in tbe district and qualified to vote there, as evidenced by a valid registry of voters made pursuant … tbe qualified voters of tbe district is intended.