Case law

State v. . Murph

212 N.C. 494 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 24, 1937

The verdict of guilty as to the defendant Will Brown was set aside by the judge, and upon his suggestion and with his approval the action as to the defendant Will Brown was nol prossed with leave by the solicitor for the … See S. v. Lawrence, 196 N. C., 562 , 146 S. E., 395 ; S. v. Burleson, 198 N. C., 61 , 150 S. E., 628 ; Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. 1, sec. 660, p. 1063. There is no error in tbe judgment. It is affirmed. No error.

City of Winston-Salem v. Smith

216 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 1939

Gunter v. Sanford, 186 N. C., 452 , 120 S. E., 41 ; Charlotte v. Brown, 165 N. C., 435 , 81 S. E., 611 . … But where the board acts in violation of it, the assessment is void and jurisdictional, and can be *6 taken advantage of at any time when the assessment is sought to be enforced. Charlotte v. Brown, supra.

Johnson v. Board of Trustees of Durham Technical Community College

357 N.C. 570 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 7, 2003

State v. . Shannonhouse

166 N.C. 241 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 18, 1914

S. v. Johnson, 114 N. C., 946 ; S. v. Lawing, 164 N. C., 492 ; Fellows v. Charleston, 62 W. Va., 665 . It is true, it is said in S. v. … BROWN, J., dissenting.

Bynum Ex Rel. Boette v. Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Education

363 N.C. 580 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 27, 2009

682 S.E.2d 207 (2009) Antwan BYNUM, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Wayne BOETTE, and Anita Bynum v. The NASH-ROCKY MOUNT BOARD OF EDUCATION. No. 172P09. Supreme Court of North Carolina. August 27, 2009. W.

Porter v. . Durham

74 N.C. 767 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1876

Cited: Staton v. R. R. , 109 N.C. 341 ; Fleming v. R. R. , 115 N.C. 696 ; Mizzell v. McGowan , 120 N.C. 138 ; Porter v. Armstrong , 129 N.C. 102 ; Mullen v. Canal Co. , 130 N.C. 502 ; Davis v. … Smith , 141 N.C. 109 , 110 ; Clark v. Guano Co. , 144 N.C. 76 ; Greenwood v. R. R. , 144 N.C. 448 ; Briscoe v. Parker , 145 N.C. 17 ; Brown v. R. R. , 165 N.C. 395 , 396 ; Yowmans v.

Town of Franklin v. Franks

205 N.C. 96 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 12, 1933

board at the time the suit was brought in 1932. … See Lyon v. Lyon, 43 N. C., 201 ; Daniel v. Comrs., 74 N. C., 494; Haymore v. Comrs., 85 N. C., 268 ; Whitehurst v. Dey, 90 N. C., 542 ; Brown v. R. R., 147 N. C., 217 , 60 S. E., 985 .

Ideal Brick Co. v. Gentry

191 N.C. 636 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 28, 1926

. — Hoke, J., in Board of Health v. Comrs., 173 N. C., 250 . … Brown v. Markland, 22 Ind. App., p. 655; Dixon v. Horne, 180 N. C., 585 ; Scheflow v. Pierce, 176 N. C., 91 .

Case v. . Ewbanks

194 N.C. 775 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 21, 1927

The building had been used for many years as a hotel or boarding house. There was evidence tending to show that said building was worth from $8,000 to $9,000. … Aldridge v. Ins. Co., ante, 683; Smith v. Ins. Co., 193 N. C., 446 ; Bullard v. Ins. Co., 189 N. C., 34 ; Ins. Co. v. Lumber Co., 186 N. C., 269 ; Johnson v. Ins. Co., 172 N. C., 142 .

Johnson v. Board of Tr. of Durham Technical Cmty. Coll.

357 N.C. 250 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 12, 2003

Huyck Corp. v. Town of Wake Forest

321 N.C. 589 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1988

BROWN, JR. and wife, EMMA BROWN; RUSSELL S. FINCH and wife, ANNE C. FINCH; RICHARD E. HAILEY and wife, BECKY HAILEY; JERRY W. LAWS and wife, PAT LAWS; JAMES L. DAVIS and wife, MRS. JAMES L. DAVIS; JAMES L. … PENDERGRASS v. TOWN OF WAKE FOREST No. 320PA87 (Filed 3 February 1988) On discretionary review of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 86 N.C.

Redman v. . Graham

80 N.C. 231 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1879

So in Mason v. Williams, 66 N. … Sherrill v. Sherrill, 73 N. C., 8; Henderson v. Lemly, 79 N. C., 169 .

State ex rel. Board of Railroad Commissioners v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad

122 N.C. 877 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 8, 1898

The point was considered and adjudged in the cases of Rhyne v. Lipscombe, State v. Ray and Tate v. Commissioners, a t this Term. … C., 425 , it is an administrative court (somewhat like the Board of County Commissioners).

Murdock v. Commissioners.

138 N.C. 124 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 18, 1905

Brown, J. His Honor, Judge Bryan, instructed the jury upon the evidence to answer the issue “no” and gave judgment for plaintiffs for $95.61, the amount of the tax which plaintiffs had paid. … “The following is the order of said board: 'Ordered that the clerk of this board make out tax receipt against Watt & Murdock for $10,080., as a corrected receipt for return of 1902.’ *126 “At the meeting of the board of commissioners

Rogers v. Powell

174 N.C. 388 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 24, 1917

Fuel Co. v. Staton, at present term; Comrs. v. McDaniel, 52 N. C., 107 ; Burke v. Elliott, 26 N. C., 355 ; Tar River Co. v. Neal, 10 N. C., 520 ; Brown v. O’Connel, 36 Conn., 432 ; 8 Am. and Eng. … There is nothing in the case of Salisbury v. Croom, 167 N. C., 223 , cited for plaintiff board, that in any way militates against our present decision.

North Carolina State Board of Health v. Commissioners of Louisburg

173 N.C. 250 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 4, 1917

Pritchard v. Comrs., 126 N. C., pp. 908-913; Hopper v. Covington, 118 U. S., pp. 148-151; Equitable Assurance v. Brown, 213 U. S., 25 ; Graef v. Equitable Insurance, 160 N. Y., 119 ; Griffin v. R. … Ormond v. Ins. Co., 145 N. C., 142 . The presence of the Board of Health, therefore, even without the power to sue, does not prevent the efficient maintenance of the action.

States' Rights Democratic Party v. North Carolina State Board of Elections

229 N.C. 179 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 8, 1948

G.S., 163-10 , subsections 2 and 15; G.S., 163-183 ; Burgin v. Board of Elections , 214 N.C. 140 , 198 S.E. 592 . … What was said in Board of Education v. Comrs. , 189 N.C. 650 , 127 S.E. 692 , is relevant here.

Martin County v. . Trust Co.

178 N.C. 27 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 10, 1919

In Brown v. … Hoke, J., placed the decision upon the ground above stated in Brown v. Comrs .

Cabaniss v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.

621 S.E.2d 176 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 6, 2005

COUCOULAS/KNIGHT PROPERTIES v. Hillsborough

691 S.E.2d 411 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 15, 2010

691 S.E.2d 411 (2010) COUCOULAS/KNIGHT PROPERTIES, LLC v. TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, a North Carolina municipality, and its Board of Commissioners. No. 404A09. Supreme Court of North Carolina. April 15, 2010. … Brown & Bunch, PLLC, by LeAnn Nease Brown, Chapel Hill, for plaintiff/petitioner-appellant. Brough Law Firm, by Robert E. Hornik, Jr., Chapel Hill, for defendant/respondent-appellees. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.