Case law

In the Matter of William H. Hughes

61 N.C. 57 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1867

We are not putting a construction upon a treaty between independent nations; we are putting a construction upon a Constitution “ adopted by the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union, establish … The clause under consideration should be construed, in connection with the clause immediately preceding, “ the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States

Fann v. North Carolina Railroad

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

C., p. 252, applying the general rule contained in the fourth clause, it was held, among other ¿hings: “Negligence having-first been established, facts and attendant circumstances may so qualify the obligation to look and … There was nothing here to qualify his obligation to care for his own safety, and recovery was denied.

Pleasant v. Johnson

312 N.C. 710 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 30, 1985

England established a workers' compensation plan in 1897. Horovitz, p. 5. … Of the jurisdictions which provide co-employees with immunity from common law tort actions in situations covered by workers' compensation acts, sixteen appear to recognize an exception to such immunity in cases involving

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.

Pelletier v. Interstate Cooperage Co.

158 N.C. 403 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1912

All of the defendants, except Emerick and The Cooperage Company, made formal answer, admitting the mistake, .and against them it was established by the verdict and that both of said defendants took and hold the property with … The principle is not further dwelt upon for the reason that in the present case the mistake is clearly one of fact and not of law.

Klassette v. Liggett Drug Co.

227 N.C. 353 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 30, 1947

If the evidence fails to establish either one of the essential elements of actionable negligence, the judgment of nonsuit must be affirmed. … The principle, firmly established in our decisions, is clearly stated by Adams, J., in Markham v. Improvement Co. and City of Durham, 201 N. C., 117 , 158 S.

Johnson v. Salsbury

232 N.C. 432 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 11, 1950

Johnson, should qualify as guardian of her grandchildren before an appropriate court, unless her language will admit of no *439 other reasonable construction. … Johnson bandied the stock as a mere guardian is clearly insupportable. *441 The second and third arguments of the plaintiffs on this aspect of the litigation are equally as untenable. the decree under consideration was rendered

Bank v. Levy.

138 N.C. 274 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 2, 1905

Stone and his clerk, Young, up to April 21, and that the receipts from sales were paid over to Stone every day by Young and the business conducted just as it had been since its establishment in December, 1902. … They were to be admitted, not because of any credit due to him by whom they were done or uttered, but because they qualified and characterized, or tended to qualify and characterize, the very fact to be investigated.”

Cain v. Commissioners of Davie County

86 N.C. 8 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1882

This principle underlies all “local option” legislation and is fully recognized and established in this state. Caldwell v. Justices, 4 Jones Eq., 323 . 2. … We can scarcely conceive a case more clearly within the compass of the rule than that now under consideration.

Holt v. . McLean

75 N.C. 347 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1876

McLean has been • duly elected Register of Deeds for Alamance County, by the qualified voters of said County, on the first day of August, 1872, now if the said Thos. G. … As to duties clearly enjoined upon the principal, but not covered by the conditions of the bond, the sureties may all say, “ we have entered into no such covenant.”

State v. . Sheets

89 N.C. 543 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1883

The evidence was clearly admissible. “Malicious mischief consists in the wilful destruction of personal property from actual ill will or resentment towards the owner or possessor.” Sta te v. … It wrns objected that the witness had not qualified himself to answer as an expert, but this court held that he was competent.

State v. Godwin

369 N.C. 604 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 9, 2017

The trial court also established that Officer Kennerly’s testimony met the three-pronged test of reliability pursuant to the amended rule. … Furthermore, with the 2006 amendment to Rule 702, our General Assembly clearly signaled that the results of the HGN test are sufficiently reliable to be admitted into the courts of this State.

Hall v. Southern Railway Co.

146 N.C. 345 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 11, 1907

Can words convey that idea any more distinctly and clearly than those used in the section quoted ? We have virtually held in two cases that this is the true construction of the act. Hartness v. Pharr, 133 N. … But tbe decision is expressly based upon tbe fact that tbe administrator bad qualified in tbe State where tbe cause of action arose.

Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp.

350 N.C. 449 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 25, 1999

We can find no case in which either this Court or the United States Supreme Court has established such a rule. … Because N.C.G.S. § 131E-95 clearly prohibits the introduction of peer review materials into evidence, Presbyterian’s technique was the proper practice for tendering purportedly confidential peer review materials protected

Carr v. . Little

188 N.C. 100 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 21, 1924

VII, sec. 1, both acts provide that the bonds cannot be issued unless a majority of the qualified voters of the school district vote in favor of the issuance. … This section must be construed with Private Laws 1903, ch. 106, establishing a graded school in the town of Greenville, and chapter 386, Private Laws 1911, reducing the number of trustees, etc.

People of North Carolina Ex Rel. Cloud v. . Wilson

72 N.C. 155 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1875

The adjective “ regular ” is used to qualify “ election,” so as to distinguish it from some other kind of election. … If then we use “ regular ” in the sense of usual or established election, we have still to determine, what is the usual or established times for elections of Judges by the people.

Stewart v. . 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. R. … Yet this immunity is not generally extended to railroad corporations, whose servants have such extensive means (50) *Page 38 of doing mischief.

State v. Galloway

304 N.C. 485 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1981

We note first that the testimony was clearly relevant. … It is well established that a lay witness may give an opinion concerning the state of a person’s health. Carter v.

Morris v. Board of Trustees of the Newton Graded School District

184 N.C. 634 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 29, 1922

The Newton Graded School District was established by an act of the Legislature in 1907. Private Laws 1907, ch. 39, sec. 104. … A majority of the qualified voters voted in favor of the bonds, and the result of the election was duly declared and published.

State v. . Smith

223 N.C. 457 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 13, 1943

The circumstantial evidence tended to establish the identification of money of the deceased traced to the possession of the defendant; blood stains on the clothing defendant was wearing on the night of the murder; that defendant … The qualifying examination clearly shows Dr. Taylor competent to testify as an expert in chemistry as to his findings and analysis made by him of the stains found on defendant’s clothing.