Case law

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.

Good Neighbors v. Town of Denton

355 N.C. 254 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 7, 2002

Thus, for purposes of spot zoning, a “reasonable basis” is established when a zoning authority “clearly shows” that the potential benefits to the property owner, his neighbors and/or the surrounding community outweigh the … One example of a qualifying benefit is a showing that neighboring property values would increase as a result of the rezoning.

Lithium Corp. of America v. Town of Bessemer City

261 N.C. 532 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 8, 1964

It is a result of a study and recommendations made by the Municipal Government Study Commission which was established in accordance with Joint Resolution 51 of the General Assembly of 1957. … The Commission recommends that an area to be qualified for annexation must be developed for urban purposes or undergoing urban development.

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

Carolina Real Estate Co. v. Bland

152 N.C. 225 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 23, 1910

C., 314 -319, said: “A series of decisions have also established the proposition’ that whenever the word 'heirs’ appeared in an instrument as qualifying the interest of the grantee and indicative of his estate, whether in … This case has since been uniformly upheld and acted on by this Court, where the evidence of. intent to convey a fee simple was of this character, and appeared so clearly from the face of the instrument that the court could

State Education Assistance Authority v. Bank of Statesville

276 N.C. 576 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 12, 1970

The declared purpose of the federal legislation is to enable the Commissioner of Education “(1) to encourage States and nonprofit private institutions and organizations to establish adequate loan insurance programs for students … The foregoing indicates clearly that Congress has established sufficient standards in respect of loans that qualify for the interest subsidy and for the 80% insurance or guaranty.

Correll v. Division of Social Services

332 N.C. 141 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 17, 1992

The Medicaid program was established by Congress in 1965 to provide federal assistance to states which chose to pay for some of the medical costs for the needy. Schweiker v. … In the present case, such unjust consequences clearly would result from adopting the respondents’ interpretation of the statute.

Tripp v. Nobles.

67 L.R.A. 449 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 27, 1904

Mordaunt , 2 Ves., 581, which was decided in 1706, it has been holden for an established principle of equity that where a testator by his will confers a bounty on one person and makes a disposition in favor of another prejudicial … The facts set out in this record bring the case clearly within the operation of the principle, unless, as contended by the plaintiff, there be some distinguishing feature to take it out of the general rule.

Tobacco Growers Co-Operative Ass'n v. Pollock

187 N.C. 409 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 19, 1924

All the defendants are therefore brought directly within the principle established in Tobacco Assn. v. Patterson, ante, 252; Tobacco Assn. v. Battle, ante, 260; Tobacco Assn. v. … This was a fact established, and not even a mandatory injunction could change it.

People Ex Rel. Attorney General Ex Rel. Boyer v. Teague

106 N.C. 576 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1890

Having instructed the jury very fully, clearly and correctly as to what were the qualifications essential to confer the right of suffrage, we think that the Judge properly left the jury to determine, in view of the fact that … AVe think that this testimony was properly submitted to the jury, to determine whether the voter was qualified under the general instruction given by the Court.

In Re the Custody of Tenhoopen

202 N.C. 223 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 17, 1932

C., 19 ), the child was awarded to a nonresident father, who had shown that he was worthy and in every way qualified to care for it, and a like principle is approved and applied elsewhere in well considered cases. … In Peck, Domestic Relations, 3d ed. (1930), chap. 18, p. 371, sec. 30, it is said: “The father has at common law the unquestioned right of custody and control oyer his minor children as against the mother, and still more clearly

Rodwell v. Harrison.

132 N.C. 45 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1903

In respect to suits upon controversies arising after the passage of the declaratory act, the Court would feel constrained to treat the declaratory act as establishing the law or rule of action. … The time of holding elections in Littleton is not fixed by chapter 393 of the Act of 1901, while the "provisions” therefor are clearly set forth therein.

State v. Clyburn

247 N.C. 455 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 10, 1958

Defendants gathered at the church to discuss the “plight of employment of qualified Negro young people.” … It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every *459 kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without

Hicks v. Board of Education

183 N.C. 394 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 26, 1922

Briefly, it provides that an election may be held upon petition of two-thirds of the qualified voters, and if at the election a majority of the qualified voters in said district shall vote against special tax, the tax shall … There is another ground upon which it is contended that this election is clearly illegal.

Burcl v. North Carolina Baptist Hospital, Inc.

306 N.C. 214 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 13, 1982

Rule 15, particularly subsection (c), when considered in light of Rule 17(a), just as clearly authorizes the latter change in capacity in which the same plaintiff brings his claim. … When this rule was established, the period of limitation was a condition precedent to maintaining the action. Later it was made a true statute of limitations. See discussion of the change in Graves v.

State v. . Staples

157 N.C. 637 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 20, 1911

after stating the case: It is well recognized in this State that “courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretionary powers conferred upon municipal corporations for the public welfare unless their action is so clearly … In our present decision we do not intend to qualify or qtiestion in any way the disposition made of Whitlock’s appeal, supra.

Plott v. Board of Commissioners

187 N.C. 125 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 22, 1924

The' first and second exceptions are so clearly -untenable as to require no discussion, and the third relates to the legal effect of the first finding of facts and may be considered in connection with exceptions taken to … of the qualified voters of tbe nontaxing territory.

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. … Hinton, and he owed him $9,000, which clearly implies that the assets were not sufficient to pay the debts.

United Daughters of the Confederacy, N.C. Div. v. City of Winston-Salem

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 16, 2022

“It is a well-established rule of construction in North Carolina that a statute is presumed to have prospective effect only and should not be construed to have a retroactive application unless such an intent is clearly expressed … In light of this definition, the monument as described in the amended complaint simply cannot qualify as abandoned property that has escheated to the State.

Herring v. . Dixon

122 N.C. 420 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 22, 1898

Because the tax has not been authorized by a majority of the qualified voters of said county. … No provision of the Constitution was pointed out which clearly forbids it. 4. We see no force in the objection that Section 5 is unconstitutional.