Case law

Whetsell v. Jernigan

291 N.C. 128 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1976

Thus, these cases are distinguishable from the conveyance in the case at bar which had no qualifying clause in the habendum. Were it not for the decisions in Artis v. Artis, supra, and Oxendine v. … Hill, 112 N.C. 1, 18 , 16 S.E. 1011, 1016 (1893), quoting from Fearne, Contingent Remainders and Executory Devises 171 (Butler ed. 1862) : “ ‘Certain established maxims as to the legal import and effect of technical expressions

State v. Helms

345 N.C. 578 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 5, 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.

Rosenthal v. City of Goldsboro

149 N.C. 128 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 19, 1908

This doctrine, so clearly and forcibly stated by the learned Justice, was apparently qualified to some extent in State v. Higgs, a decision of this Court, reported in 126 N. … public weal, and will never do so unless their action should be so clearly unreasonable as to amount to an oppressive and manifest abuse of their discretion.

Howell v. Cooper

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 22, 2025

“If a claimant satisfies these three criteria, sovereign immunity ‘does not bar the claim’ and the trial court must deny a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity.” … These determinations will ultimately be matters of degree for the court to decide in light of the established facts.

State v. Mitchell

217 N.C. 244 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 1940

Then we are faced by well recognized and firmly established rules of construction which preclude the adoption of this interpretation. … The forbidden act must come clearly within the prohibition of the statute for the scope of a penal statute will not ordinarily be enlarged by construction to take in offenses not clearly described; and any doubt on this point

Rowan County Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co.

332 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 17, 1992

. § 1-50(6), a products liability statute of repose, both establish a *6 six-year repose period. N.C.G.S. §§ 1-50(5), -50(6) (Supp. 1991). N.C.G.S. § 1-52(5) prescribes a three-year limitation period. … Clearly, if USG is correct that the statutes of limitation and repose apply to Rowan, Rowan’s suit, which was brought twenty-four years after the last installation, was time-barred.

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

Lutterloh v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

172 N.C. 116 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 4, 1916

The negligence of the defendant company being clearly established,, we have also held in numerous cases that although one who is undertaking to cross a railroad track is required to look and listen and to take note of conditions … which are likely to cause injury, the facts and attendant circumstances may so qualify this obligation that the question of contributory negligence must be submitted to the jury.

The People of N.C. Ex Rel . Van Bokkelen v. . Canaday

73 N.C. 198 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1875

Where were the other 2,937 qualified voters? … This of itself takes this case out of the ordinary rules and doctrines applying to elections, and establishes that this was in no sense an election by the qualified voters of the city, but simply an attempt to delegate to

School Commissioners v. Board of Aldermen & Treasurer

158 N.C. 191 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 1912

purposes so approved of by a majority of qualified voters of the city, and levy a tax in accordance with the provisions of this act.” … For the control and management of the school system, a board of commissioners is established, to be elected by the people of the city. The mayor, while chairman ex oficio, is not allowed to vote except in ease of a tie.

State v. Harding

291 N.C. 223 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1976

Assuming, without deciding, that the declarations of Clyde Ray Englebert to David Henson did not qualify as dying declarations under G.S. 8-51.1, this testimony was clearly competent to corroborate the statements made by … Clearly, this evidence established the identity of the caller as Clyde Ray Englebert.

State v. Smith

291 N.C. 438 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 21, 1976

It is binding in every sense, preventing the party who makes it from introducing evidence to dispute it, and relieving the opponent of the necessity of producing evidence to establish the admitted fact. … For the reasons stated we hold that G.S. 15A-928 is immune to the attack which defendant makes upon it. Accordingly the judgment of Judge Perry Martin is Reversed.

Appeal of Springmoor, Inc.

348 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 3, 1998

. § 105-275(32)(v) violates the prohibition against the establishment of religion found in Article I, Section 13 of the North Carolina Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States … Thus, the appropriate mode of analysis is an Establishment Clause inquiry, which utilizes the Lemon tests.

Faison v. . Commissioners

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

It is a correct proposition that the property in one district may not be taxed, when it clearly appears that such tax is for the exclusive (415) benefit of another. Keith v. Lockhart, supra . … The establishment of a separate taxing district for local purposes does not exempt its inhabitants from any charges for the general public good, as, for example, the creation of a school district in order to confer special

CHAPEL HILL TITLE & ABSTRACT CO. v. Town of Chapel Hill

362 N.C. 649 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 2008

[A] showing that the portion of the Resource Conservation District outside of a regulatory floodplain overlays more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the area of a zoning lot, shall establish a rebuttable presumption that … However, the noble purpose of the RCD Ordinance does not grant respondents immunity from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or the Constitution of North Carolina.

Ray v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

366 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 14, 2012

” and apart from the State’s partial waiver of sovereign immunity. … The legislature first enacted a partial waiver of sovereign immunity in 1951.

Lovelace v. . Pratt

187 N.C. 686 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 7, 1924

“The position is presented and clearly approved in principle in the Gollie case, supra,. … C., 300, and having taken over and used these school buildings as part of the public school system, it having been established or admitted that the same are necessary to a proper maintenance of the six months school term,

Syme v. . Badger

96 N.C. 197 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1887

She had qualified as executrix of L. … This *210 is clearly established by the case of Speer v. James, 94 N. C , 417; and the cases there cited. That was a creditor's suit, prosecuted against the administrator and heir at law.

State v. Lewis

281 N.C. 564 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 1972

, a qualified expert in that field. … His testimony was clearly competent under the test laid down in State *570 v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205 , 52 S.E. 2d 908 , and applied in State v.

Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co.

146 N.C. 47 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1907

This exception to the general rule seems to be established by most abundant authority and for the reason I have given. In the well-considered case of Bittle v. Railroad, 23 L. R. … Yet this immunity is not generally extended to railroad corporations, *50 whose servants have such extensive means of doing mischief.