Case law

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.

North Carolina National Bank v. Barbee

260 N.C. 106 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 19, 1963

In the vast majority of jurisdictions the rule is that merely qualifying as executor or administrator c.t.a. is not sufficient standing alone, to constitute an election to take under the will but is a factor tending to establish … In holding that W was not put to an election, the Court said: “To raise the legal necessity of election, the intent of the donor must clearly appear from the will under recognized rules of construction. . . .

Jones v. Norfolk Southern Railroad

176 N.C. 260 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 23, 1918

"While the law in question clearly recognizes assumption of risk as a defense in certain instances, under section 4 such a position is absolutely inhibited in cases where the violation of a Federal statute, enacted for the … averring contributory negligence by plaintiff were in no sense qualifying or explanatory of tbe fact admitted,, and were therefore properly excluded.

Sechrist v. Board of Commissioners

181 N.C. 511 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 7, 1921

At an election held in High Point Township on 18 January, 1921, a majority of the qualified voters of said township voted in favor of the issuance of said bonds and the levying of said taxes, as provided in said chapter 9 … The Legislature has attempted to do something which is clearly forbidden by the Constitution, and which, therefore, is beyond its authority.

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 tbe State board of elections shall be allowed access to tbe ballot boxes in such precincts to make a recount and declare tbe results, which shall be done under such rules as tbe State board of elections shall establish

State Ex Rel. Anderson-Oliver v. United States Fidelity Co.

174 N.C. 417 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 31, 1917

Gorham, intestate, qualified as guardian of feme plaintiff and gave bond with defendant company, a foreign corporation, as surety; that on 9 November, 1906, said guardian filed an annual account showing receipt of guardianship … This being true, on the facts in evidence, plaintiff’s cause of- action is clearly barred unless it is preserved by reason by section 366 of the Revisal, which suspends the running of the statute in certain cases on account

State v. Ellis

243 N.C. 142 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 23, 1955

Among these, the rule which regulates the admission of testimony, offered to impeach the character of a witness, is now so well established and so clearly defined, that a departure from it must be regarded as a violation … shall have first qualified himself by stating that he knows the general reputation of the person in question.”

Kindler v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.

204 N.C. 198 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 22, 1933

The endorsement of the plaintiff was neither special nor restrictive nor qualified, nor conditional. … The principle is clearly set forth in Moffitt v. Maness, 102 N. C., 457 , and has often been restated. Another principle is equally familiar.

Pritchard v. Williams

175 N.C. 319 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 10, 1918

Pritchard, who was the principal witness to establish the trust, that he qualified as executor of D. L. … in trust, and if not, tbe bias and feeling of tbe witness towards' tbe cause and parties was made to appear clearly by bis further cross-examination.

Carolina-Virginia Coastal Highway v. Coastal Turnpike Authority

237 N.C. 52 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 30, 1953

challenged statute and the charter issued thereunder by the Municipal Board'' of Control direct that the governing board so selected shall serve for a period of six years, or until their successors are duly elected and qualified … These recitals are neutralized and stripped of effectiveness by the provisions which expressly immunize the corporation from any kind of governmental visitation or control. The decisions in Webb v.

Burney v. . Comrs.

184 N.C. 274 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1922

Cumberland , 180 N.C. 321 ; and that the second election was clearly authorized by C. S., ch. 95, art. 39. On the other hand, both of these propositions are controverted by the plaintiffs. … of educational work in the district already established.

Elizabeth City Water & Power Co. v. City of Elizabeth City

188 N.C. 278 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 1, 1924

The plaintiff’s complaint, stripped of all technicalities, in a “nutshell,” is that the defendant, the city of Elizabeth City, is about to start a rival business by establishing a water system, etc., and as a consequence … It was clearly possible and, in fact, easy for plaintiff to set forth, by proper incorporation or specific reference, those records or documents which constitute the official action granting, creating, impairing or violating

State v. Helms

348 N.C. 578 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 9, 1998

He contended that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test without the establishment of a proper foundation. … The evidence presented at trial was clearly sufficient to send the case to the jury and to support a jury finding of guilty of driving while impaired. However, that is not the question before us.

State v. Cuthrell

233 N.C. 274 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 1951

A plea of not guilty to a criminal charge puts in issue every fact necessary to establish the guilt of the accused. S. v. Meyers, 190 N.C. 239 , 129 S.E. 600 ; S. v. Hardy, 189 N.C. 799 , 128 S.E. 152 . … The statement of Sheriff Stevens, who visited the premises subsequent to the fire, that in his opinion the building was “set afire” is clearly incompetent. This is not a case for opinion evidence.

Sabine v. . Gill, Comr. of Revenue

229 N.C. 599 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1948

But it is not favored; and there is authority that statutes should be so construed as to avoid it when the intent is not clearly expressed. 51 Am. Jur., Taxation, sec. 286, and cases cited. … In this instance had the Legislature so intended they might have immunized those in like situation with the plaintiff by exempting all income derived from a foreign established business or 'investment taxable at its situs

Bailey v. State

348 N.C. 130 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 8, 1998

The Court went on to explain that “[g]overnmental immunity is not a defense .... … Such a result would clearly elevate form over substance.

Fann v. . R. R.

155 N.C. 136 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 3, 1911

R. , 140 N.C. 252 , applying the general rule contained in the fourth clause, it was held, among other things: "Negligence having first been established, facts and attendant circumstances may so qualify the obligation to … There was nothing here to qualify his obligation to care for his own safety, and recovery was denied. In Mitchell v. R.

Harriss v. . Wright

121 N.C. 172 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1897

In this county the sovereign people have established National and State constitutions, and these constitutions are the (179) supreme law of the land. … No man or men have yet been able to establish a government capable of accomplishing its legitimate ends, and also incapable of some inconvenience and mischief.

Cunningham v. . Sprinkle

124 N.C. 638 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 9, 1899

The points in this case, however important, are comparatively simple and clearly presented. There is no effort to remove the 'defendants from office, or to deprive them of any rights of property therein. … This sec *642 tion does not profess to establish any snob department, bnt simply directs the Legislature to do so, leaving to it tbe largest latitude of regulation.