Case law

Fleming v. . Barden

126 N.C. 450 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 1900

But in Carter v. Duncan, 84 N. C., 676 (the next term after the case of Banh v. Limber ger had been decided), the case of Banh v. I/ineberger was overruled; and Garter v. … Duncan has been held to be the law ever since, and has been cited with approval in several cases, among them Forbis v. Shepard, 98 N. C., 111 ; Hollingsworth v. Tomlinson, 108 N. C., 245 . And as was said in Bank v.

King v. Beaufort County Board of Education

693 S.E.2d 655 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 18, 2010

693 S.E.2d 655 (2010) Viktoria KING, et al. v. BEAUFORT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al. Nos. 480A09, 481A09. Supreme Court of North Carolina. February 18, 2010. Jane Wettach, for Revondia Harvey-Barrow. Curtis H.

Board of Commissioners v. Hanchett Bond Co.

194 N.C. 137 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 25, 1927

Brown v. Comrs., 173 N. C., 598 . … Our conclusion finds support in Brown v. Comrs., supra, and in McLeod v. Comrs., 148 N. C., 77 . See, also, Jones v. Comrs., 107 N. C., 248 ; McCracken v. R. R., 168 N. C., 62 ; Casey v. Dare Co., ibid., 285.

Ball v. Randolph County Board of Adjustment

349 N.C. 348 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1998

Champion v. Vance County Board of Health

221 N.C. 96 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 18, 1942

Hence, if there are no funds available with which to pay plaintiff’s award, a writ of mandamus would not issue to require the Board of Health to do an impossible act. See Woodcock v. … Nevertheless, the statute indicates that a county board of health is a subordinate governmental agency (referred to by Hoke, J., in case of Board of Health v. Comrs., 173 N. C., 250 , 91 S.

Board of Commissioners v. Security Trust Co.

164 N.C. 301 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 10, 1913

Washington City Board of Education v. Edgerton

244 N.C. 576 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 10, 1956

It was stipulated that the plaintiff, The Washington City Board of Education, a body corporate, is one and the same as the Board of Trustees of the Washington City Administrative Unit and the Board of School Trustees of the … Hall v. Quinn, supra; Tucker v. Smith, *579 199 N.C. 502 , 154 S.E. 826 ; Lassiter v. Jones, 215 N.C. 298 , 1 S.E. 2d 845 .

Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta Railroad v. Board of Commissioners

72 N.C. 10 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1875

There can be no question that it may tax it upon the valuation of a Board consisting of the Governor and other associates. … But we conceive that the Assembly has no right to confer on such Board the power of valuing the tangible real and personal property of a railroad company.

Beatty v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

329 N.C. 691 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 14, 1991

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen

284 N.C. 458 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 25, 1974

The case of Lee v. Board of Adjustment, supra, is factually distinguishable and does not dictate the answer to the question now posed. See MacPherson v. … See Keiger v. Board of Adjustment, 281 N.C. 715, 720 , 190 S.E. 2d 175, 179 (1972).

North Carolina Board of Pharmacy v. Lane

248 N.C. 134 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 9, 1958

S. v. Collins (N.M.), 297 P. 2d 325 ; Louisiana Board of Pharmacy v. Smith, 65 *139 So. 2d 654; Beeman v. Board of Pharmacy (Mich.), 35 N.W. 2d 354 ; Rosenblatt v. Board of Pharmacy (Cal.), 158 P. 2d 199 ; Stewart v. … In Thomas v. Board of Pharmacy, 152 N.C. 373 , 67 S.E. 925 , and McNair v.

Lackey v. Hamlet City Board of Education

257 N.C. 78 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 2, 1962

Davis v. Ludlum, 255 N.C. 663 , 122 S.E. 2d 500 ; 89 C.J.S., Trial, secs. 635 and 636. … Bradham v. Robinson, 236 N.C. 589 , 73 S.E. 2d 555 ; 89 C.J.S., ibid.

Holt v. Albemarle Regional Health Services Board

362 N.C. 357 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 10, 2008

Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

362 N.C. 360 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 10, 2008

Ocean Hill v. Currituck Board of Comm.

641 S.E.2d 694 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 2, 2007

Efird v. Board of Commissioners

219 N.C. 96 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1941

Provision Co. v. Daves, 190 N. C., 7 . It was held in Meador v. Thomas, 205 N. … Tbat tbe board of commissioners bad tbe power to abolish tbe court during tbe term of tbe judge was held in Queen v. Comrs. of Haywood, supra.

Board of Education v. Union Development Co.

159 N.C. 162 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 28, 1912

County of Calhoun v. Emigrant Co., 93 U. S., 124 ; Fuller v. Hollis, 57 Ala., 435 ; Merchants Ins. Co. v. Nowlin, 56 S. W., 198 (Tex. Civ. … The case of Arrington v. Arrington, 114 N. C., 116 , does not antagonize the principle, and Craddock v. Barnes, 142 N. C., 89 , is in direct recognition of it.

Oakes v. LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS

659 S.E.2d 737 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 2008

659 S.E.2d 737 (2008) Martin Andrew OAKES v. LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Lincoln County Board of Education, Lincoln County Board of Commissioners. No. 61P07-2. Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 6, 2008.

Oakes v. Lincoln County Board of Elections

362 N.C. 237 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 2008

Benton v. Board of Education of Cumberland County

201 N.C. 653 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 18, 1931

No-cause of action is stated in the complaint against the defendant, Board of Education of Cumberland County, or against the defendants, J. E. Reaves and W. T. Reaves. In Scales v. Winston-Salem, 189 N. C., 469 , 127 S. … Eeaves, is payable to the defendant, Board of Education of Cumberland County. These sureties are not liable to the plaintiff under the terms of the bond or on the principle upon which Gorrell v. Water Supply Co., 124 N.