Case law

Brown v. . Costen

176 N.C. 63 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 18, 1918

And a qualified voter at such primary is said to be one who is a qualified voter of the State or who will become one on or before the next general election, and who has "declared and had recorded on the registration book … elections and the State board of elections shall be allowed access to the ballot boxes in such precincts to make a recount and declare the results, which shall be done under such rules as the State board of elections shall establish

Fletcher v. . Comrs. of Buncombe

218 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 19, 1940

The act itself deals only with the mechanics of establishing or changing the lines of school districts or special bond tax units, and does not, ex proprio vigore , undertake to establish or to change any such lines. … A proper construction of these statutes must reconcile them under this rule, which is so clearly expressed in Felmet v. Comrs. , 186 N.C. 251 , 119 S.E. 353 .

Faison v. Commissioners

171 N.C. 411 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 3, 1916

Tbe first position taken by tbe plaintiffs is tbat tbe election beld under tbe act of 1915 is of no effect, as a majority of tbe qualified voters did not cast their- votes “against stock law” in tbe county. … Tbe establishment of a separate taxing district for local purposes does not exempt its inhabitants from any charges for tbe general public good, as, for example, tbe creation of a school district in order to confer special

Miller v. Carolina Coast Emergency Physicians, LLC

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2022

¶ 17 This argument is untenable in light of the precedent we established in Preston. … Thus, as Harnett Health implicitly concedes, the record establishes that Dr.

State Ex Rel. Bunting v. Gales

77 N.C. 283 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1877

Clearly any other rule- would subordinate the public welfare to the interest of the officer. He takes subject to the power of the Legislature to change his duties and emoluments as the public good may require. … When the present plaintiff qualified as Clerk, the Constitution of 1868 was in force, and by § 19 of Art IY, the General Assembly was required to provide for the establishment of Special Courts for the trial of misdemeanors

Riddle v. . Cumberland

180 N.C. 321 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 10, 1920

It was merely a convenient form of ballot designated to express the will of the qualified voters upon the question submitted to them, and the ballots used by them and the surrounding circumstances show clearly and unmistakably … The entire township was to be established as a single school district, and the vote was to be taken accordingly.

Evans v. Freeman.

142 N.C. 61 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 18, 1906

In Clark on Contracts (2 Ed.), at p. 85, tbe principle is thus clearly and concisely stated: “Where a contract does not fall within tbe statute tbe parties may at tbeir option put' tbeir agreement in writing, . or may contract … A qualified endorsement may, by the express terms of that section, be made by adding to the endorser’s signature the words “without recourse,” or any words of similar import.

Davis v. Frazier

150 N.C. 447 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1909

It does not clearly appear from the testimony that the defendant entered as assignee under this deed; but, assuming this. to be true, we are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to have her cause submitted to a jury, … This is clearly illustrated and upheld in the case to which we were referred by counsel, Epperson v. Epperson, Supr. Ct. Va., reported in 62 S. E. 344 .

Cannaday v. Railroad

143 N.C. 439 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 22, 1906

But the question here is whether the contract or arrangements set up in the affirmative defense is a contract for immunity from damages. … He then proceeds to analyze the terms of the contract, setting forth clearly and forcibly his interpretation of it.

Commercial Bank v. Burgwyn

110 N.C. 267 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1892

This, the only testimony upon the subject, very clearly shows that Rison was not acting for the plaintiff as its director or agent in any capacity in the discounting of the said paper, and this being so, it must follow that … If such testimony is permitted to have the effect of rebutting the prima facie case of the holder of negotiable paper, the peculiar immunities incident to such obligations will be practically destroyed, and an incalculable

State v. . Williams

186 N.C. 627 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 1923

This was an offer of violence and constituted an assault^ unless there was something accompanying the act which qualified it and indicated that there was no purpose of violence. … If the declaration had been, T intend to strike you,’ that- would not have qualified the act favorably for the defendant. Nor if he had said, ‘I have a mind to strike you.’

Hobbs v. County of Moore

267 N.C. 665 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 6, 1966

It is also well established that this Court will not adjudge an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional unless it is clearly so. Kornegay v. Goldsboro, 180 N.C. 441 , 105 S.E. 187 . … The three areas established by the present statute are not “school districts.” The statute declares that these areas are “for the purpose of representation on the Boards of Education.”

In re Briggs

135 N.C. 118 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 19, 1904

This is clearly recognized in the cases of State v. Blalock, 61 N. C., 242 , and State v. Keith, 63 N. C., 140 . … No phrases or words of any provision, securing such rights or privileges to the citizen, in the Constitution are to be qualified, limited or frittered away.

Stern v. . Lee

115 N.C. 426 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1894

homestead privileges and immunities therein. … Graham , 110 N.C. 374 , the Justice who delivered the opinion, combatting the rule established by Adrian v.

Goodwin v. Town of Reidsville

160 N.C. 411 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 13, 1912

The distinction between the two classes of powers is set forth very clearly in many adjudicated cases, as well as by text-writers, and the exemption of the municipality from liability in the one case and its liability in … the other for an injury resulting 'from negligence firmly established.

State v. Murray

310 N.C. 541 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 3, 1984

Unless a witness has been formally granted immunity there is no statutory requirement for any such cautionary instruction prior to testimony. State v. Bare, 309 N.C. 122 , 305 S.E. 2d 513 (1983). … The jury was clearly instructed to consider Benbow’s testimony carefully in light of his possible bias.

Fourth National Bank v. Wilson

168 N.C. 557 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 7, 1915

.;' and in the absence of such qualifying testimony the law will presume that such person signed his name as comaker, and in any event as surety, that being the relationship of the defendant alleged in the complaint.” … As we have seen, tbe verdict on tbe fourth issue has become immaterial, since tbe jury, in response to tbe fifth issue, has established notice sufficient to fix and bold defendant as indorser; and there is nothing to show

Madison Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Morganton

325 N.C. 634 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1989

Ed. 315 (1943), which held that an agricultural marketing program established by California was immune from scrutiny under the federal antitrust laws. … The Court reasoned that the statutes clearly contemplate that a city may engage in anticompetitive conduct.

Boyd v. . Leatherwood

165 N.C. 614 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 27, 1914

It is evident that the court ruled them out because the witness had not qualified himself to answer them. At any rate, there is no finding that he was so qualified. … It does not appear clearly that it was. He was only asked, "Is that a (618) genuine signature?" without any indication to us of what signature was meant.

State Ex Rel. Markham v. Simpson

175 N.C. 135 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 20, 1918

Sawyer and he appeared and qualified as mayor. … Section 64 establishes his salary, and in section 65 he is to fill the position of city manager and receive his salary in case of a vacancy of that office or a failure of the incumbent to perform his duties.