Case law

State Ex Rel. Bouldin v. Davis

197 N.C. 731 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1929

On this point we are referred by the appellant to Britt v. Board of Canvassers, 172 N. C., 797 , and to Alexander v. Pharr, 179 N. … L., 656; 32 Cyc., 1412; Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S., 449, 461 , 28 Law Ed., 482, 487; Brooks v. State, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1126; S. v. Hardie, 23 N. C., 42 ; Brown v. Turner, 70 N. C., 93 ; S. v. Norman, 82 N. C., 687 .

Pearson v. . Luther

212 N.C. 412 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 24, 1937

In Hendrix v. R. … Honeycutt v. Brick Co. , 196 N.C. 556 ; Kelly v. Granite Co. , 200 N.C. 326 .

McDowell v. . the Construction Co.

96 N.C. 514 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1887

Goldsboro, ante , and Duke v. Brown, ante . In the latter case, the Chief Justice says that the term "qualified voters," as used in Art. … Heilig v. Stokes , 63 N.C. 612 ; Coates v. Wilkes , 92 N.C. 376 ; Harrison v. Bray , Ibid., 488; Turner v. Cuthrell , 94 N.C. 239 ; Blackwell v. McElwee , Ibid., 425.

Rowe v. Franklin County

318 N.C. 344 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 7, 1986

and the Board of Trustees of Franklin Memorial Hospital on 5 January 1948. … Co. v.

Cubbage v. Bd. of Trs. of the Endowment Fund of NC State Univ.

773 S.E.2d 884 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 10, 2014

Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, For The Board of Trustees Of The Endowment Fund Of North Carolina State University At Raleigh. Paul T. Flick, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For NC State Natural Resources Foundation, Inc. … N.C.G.S. 7A-31(a) and (b)(2) and Rule 15(e)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court on its own initiative hereby certifies for review prior to determination in the Court of Appeals Cubbage, et al. v.

Ingram v. . Johnson

172 N.C. 676 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 1916

by a vote of 19 to 22, and thereupon renders the following judgment: *Page 730 "Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and in view of the provision contained in the Constitution, Article VI, sec. 1 and sec. 4, and Article V, … From the judgment rendered, defendant the board of commissioners appeal.

Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc.

368 N.C. 434 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2015

Ingram v. Johnson

172 N.C. 676 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 1916

Town of East Spencer v. Rowan County

212 N.C. 425 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 24, 1937

It was so held by tbis Court in Marshburn v. Brown, 210 N. C., 331 , 186 S. E., 265 . … Tbe decisions of this Court in School District v. Alamance County and in Hickory v.

State v. . Hooker

183 N.C. 763 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 5, 1922

In re Groom, supra; S. v. Little, 175 N. C., 743 ; In re Brown, 168 N. C., 417 ; Ex parte McCown, 139 N. C., 95 . … And in S. v.

In re Yelton: Advisory Opinion

223 N.C. 845 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 12, 1944

Melville Broughton, Governor of North Carolina: Your request for an advisory opinion in the matter of Nathan Yelton poses the question whether the comptroller of the State Board of Education may be granted a leave of absence … It should be interpreted so as to carry out the general principles of the government, and not defeat them” — Brown, J., in JenTcins v. Board of Elections, 180 N. C., 169 , 85 S. E., 289 .

Smith v. . the City of Newbern

73 N.C. 303 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1875

Isler v. Brown Cox , 67 N.C. 175 . The defendant alone, upon allegations that the judgment was obtained by fraud, could make a motion in the cause to relieve it. Childs et. al. , v. Martin , 69 N.C. 126 . … Isler v. Brown , 69 N.C. 125 ; by parity of reason it had no power to amend.

Allen v. Town of Reidsville

178 N.C. 513 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 26, 1919

In Sasser v. … Best v. Kinston , 106 N.C. 205 ; Merrill v. Merrill , 92 N.C. 657 ; Clendenin v. Turner , 96 N.C. 416 . Bennett v. R. R. , 159 N.C. 345 ."

State v. Leeper

146 N.C. 655 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 20, 1908

C., 570 ; Brown, J., in State v. Harrison, 145 N. C., 417 . The particulars are fully averred, but, if the defendants had desired further information, the statute provides that they could have a bill of particulars. … Ward v.

Williams v. Elm City Lumber Co.

154 N.C. 306 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 15, 1911

Miller, 151 Ala., 580 ; Chipman v. Hibberd, 6 Col., 162 ; R. R. v. Harrington, 128 Ga., 438 ; Chicago v. Brown, 157 Ind., 544 ; Greenfield v. R. R., 83 Ia., 270 ; R. R. v. Haynes, 1 Kan. App., 586 ; Thompson v. … Bennett v. Thompson, 35 N. C., 147 ; Gaskins v. Davis, 115 N. C., 89 ; Davis v. Wall, *311 142 N. C., 451 , and Whitfield v. Mfg. Co., 152 N. C., 214 .

Collins v. Simms

257 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 2, 1962

Newberry v. Fertilizer Co., 206 N.C. 182 , 173 S.E. 67 ; Chavis v. Brown, 174 N.C. 122 , 93 S.E. 471 ; Banking Co. v. Morehead, 126 N.C. 279 , 35 S.E. 593 ; Black v. Black, 111 N.C. 300 , 16 S.E. 412 ; Stephens v. … Brown, 239 N.C. 527 , 80 S.E. 2d 241 ; Maddox v. Brown, supra; O’Briant v. Lee, 214 N.C. 723 , 200 S.E. 865 ; Stanback v. Haywood, 213 N.C. 535 , 196 S.E. 844 .

Lisenby v. State

592 S.E.2d 561 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 2004

Neal v. . Bellamy

73 N.C. 384 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1875

Stanley v. Hendricks , 13 Ired., 86 ; Browne on Frauds, sections 177, 187, 206; Emmerson v. Slaughter , 22 Howard, 28 ; Fullam v. Adams , 37 Vt. 391 . 3. … This was all fair and above board, and no statute was required to prevent fraud and perjury.

C'est Bon, Inc. v. NORTH CAROLINA BD. OF ALCOHOLIC CON.

279 N.C. 140 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 10, 1971

Board of Alcoholic Control, supra; Freeman v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 264 N.C. 320 , 141 S.E. 2d 499 ; Campbell v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 263 N.C. 224 , 139 S.E. 2d 197 ; Thomas v. … Wholesale v. ABC Board, supra.

Braswell v. State Highway & Public Works Commission

250 N.C. 508 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 12, 1959

Eller v. Board of Education, supra; Johnson v. Winston-Salem, 239 N.C. 697 , 81 S.E. 2d 153 ; *512 Phillips v. Chesson, 231 N.C. 566 , 58 S.E. 2d 343 ; McKinney v. Deneen, supra; Mizzell v. McGowan, 120 N. C. 134 . … It is a correct statement of law applicable to the facts of this case. *514 Phillips v. Chesson, supra; Cardwell v. R. R., 171 N.C. 365 , 88 S.E. 495 ; Brown v. R. R., 165 N.C. 392 , 81 S.E. 450 ; Hooker v. R.