Case law

Key v. Woodlief

258 N.C. 291 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 1962

In this case the witness did not qualify himself to testify as to speed. Therefore, the testi *294 mony was without probative force, clearly incompetent, and properly excluded. Hudson v. … Did the evidence adversely affect the plaintiff’s efforts to establish defendant’s negligence?

Board of Education v. Board of County Commissioners

174 N.C. 469 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 7, 1917

The term "uniform" here clearly does not relate to "schools," requiring that each and every school in the same or other districts throughout the State shall be of the same fixed grade, regardless of the age or attainments … of the pupils, but the term has reference to and qualifies the word "system" and is sufficiently complied with where, by statute or authorized regulation of the public-school authorities, provision is made for establishment

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.

Multiple v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services

361 N.C. 372 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 28, 2007

Thus, Hunt instructs us to assess whether the. language of the relevant statutes and regulations clearly mandates a standard of conduct owed by an agency to the complainant. … Defendant’s claim of sovereign immunity rests on the applicability of the public duty doctrine to the instant casé. .

Hammond v. City of Charlotte

206 N.C. 604 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 20, 1934

in favor of the. measure to establish and maintain by taxation a system of graded schools in the city of Charlotte. … The findings of fact are clearly sustained by the evidence in the record and there can be no question under the well settled law that the plaintiff’s judgments are a valid, binding obligation of the city of Charlotte.

Bowers v. City of High Point

339 N.C. 413 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 30, 1994

The record clearly shows that defendant, through its agent Randall W. … It is a well-established principle that municipalities, as creatures of the State, can exercise only that power which the legislature has conferred upon them.

Blue v. City of Wilmington

186 N.C. 321 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 24, 1923

This was clearly a deed of bargain and sale, and, following its execution and delivery, the encampment was established upon said land, and it was used for the specified purpose of an encampment for two or three years, when … This proposition is elaborated and clearly supported by numerous authorities cited ib., at pp. 226 ei seq.

State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. City Coach Co.

234 N.C. 489 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 21, 1951

not rendering adequate service, or failed after notice to provide the required service, then it would be the duty of the Commission to grant to the properly qualified applicant franchise to operate. … ‘may refuse to grant’ clearly import the exercise of discretion and judgment.

State v. Bullock

320 N.C. 780 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 7, 1987

The statements and non-verbal conduct in question were clearly made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment. … The statements and demonstrations were, equally clearly, pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment.

State v. Rankin

371 N.C. 885 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 21, 2018

This Court held that the indictment was facially valid because it clearly identified "the conduct which [was] the subject of the accusation" by alleging that the defendant received United States currency by pawning stolen … this Court emphasized: The test here suggested, however, is not universally sufficient, and a careful examination of the principle will disclose that the rule and its application depends not so much on the placing of the qualifying

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 , 108 Va. 608 .

State v. Barts

316 N.C. 666 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 3, 1986

than those which are not “death qualified.” … Supp. 1164 (W.D.N.C. 1984), rev’d, 742 F. 2d 129 (4th Cir. 1984), indicate that “death qualified” juries are more conviction-prone than those which are not “death qualified.”

Preston v. Movahed

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 3, 2020

MOVAHED Opinion of the Court the evidence establishes that Dr. … Clearly plaintiff should have been aware that a clinical cardiologist like Dr.

State v. Anderson

275 N.C. 168 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 12, 1969

Uniformity of rules is clearly contemplated and is clearly desirable. … The Court said: “However, it is our unqualified judgment that the purpose sought to be achieved by requiring cyclists to wear protective headgear clearly qualified as a proper subject for legislation.

Waddill v. . Masten

172 N.C. 582 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 29, 1916

The defendant Masten was the duly qualified and acting register of deeds of Forsyth County from 1 December, 1908, to 1 December, 1912. … In the present case, if the allegations of the complaint are established, there was a vested right of action for these fees in the county of For-syth.

Etheridge v. . Leary

227 N.C. 636 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 17, 1947

Proceeding under Declaratory Judgment Act to establish validity of appointment of S. M. … Ange doubtless undesired by him, is clearly in excess of the court's jurisdiction.

State v. . Collins

169 N.C. 323 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 22, 1915

On perusal of the facts presented, it clearly appears that these appellants have had no hearing of their cause within the meaning of these principles. … In the disposition made of this appeal we do not intend to impair or qualify our former decisions on the subject, notably S. v. Hamilton, 106 N. C., 660 , and S. v. Roberts, 106 N.

Sherrill v. Railroad

140 N.C. 252 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 1905

It is further held that negligence having been first established, facts and attendant circumstances may so qualify this obligation to look and listen, as to require the question of contributory negligence to be submitted … The case, we think, comes within the principles so clearly stated in Smith v. Railroad, 132 N. C., 825 . There is erfor and a new trial is awarded. New Trial.

Mottu v. Davis.

151 N.C. 237 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1909

Whether by reason of section 2, Article IV, that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States,” a like ruling would have obtained if the complainant … jurisdiction of her courl s, applies to all persons, both resident and nonresident, and to all judgments, both domestic and foreign; and under the various authoritative decisions construing these terms, “privileges and immunities

State v. Armstrong

345 N.C. 161 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 6, 1996

Defendant does not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that the crime of first-degree murder was committed but contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was the perpetrator. … Defendant contends that in admitting this testimony, the trial court erroneously permitted Detective Whitt to give his opinion without first qualifying *166 him as an expert.