Case law

State v. . Wood

175 N.C. 810 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 8, 1918

In S. v. Brittain , 143 N.C. 669 , Brown, J. , says that "What is meant by the terms `jury' and `grand jury,' as used in the Constitution, is fully defined in the learned opinion of Mr. Justice Shepherd in S. v. … Peacock , 220 N.C. 64 ; S. v. Morgan , 225 N.C. 550 ; Edwards v. Board of Education , 235 N.C. 351 ; S. v. Gaston , 236 N.C. 502 ; S. v. Honeycutt , 237 N.C. 598 ; S. v. Brady , 238 N.C. 410 ; S. v.

State v. Patterson

288 N.C. 553 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1975

During cross-examination the court asked Sergeant Brown, “Did he say he wanted to go ahead and make a statement?” Brown replied, “Yes, sir, he did. … Bowman v. Blankenship, 165 N.C. 519 , 81 S.E. 2d 746 ; Brown v. Loftis, 226 N.C. 762, 764 , 40 S.E. 2d 421 ; Stansbury, of. cit. § 50. . . .” See Gibson v. Whitton, 239 N.C. 11 , 79 S.E. 2d 196 (1953).

State v. . Harris

181 N.C. 600 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 3, 1921

Cameron v. Power Co. , 137 N.C. 101 ; S. v. Journigan , 120 N.C. 568 ; S. v. Hart , 116 N.C. 977 ; Paper Co. v. Chronicle , 115 N.C. 147 ; Allen v. McLendon , 113 N.C. 319 ; S. v. Debnam , 98 N.C. 712 ; S. v. … Gooch , 94 N.C. 982 ; S. v. Miller, ib. , 902; S. v. Gay, ib. , 821; McCoy v. Lassiter, ib. , 131.

In Re Will of McDowell

230 N.C. 259 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 13, 1949

G.S. 8-51; Arndt v. Ins. Co., 176 N.C. 652 , 97 S.E. 631 ; In re Will of Brown, 203 N.C. 347 , 166 S.E. 72 . The authentication and competency of the letters are supported by what was said in Lee v. … Beddingfield, 225 N.C. 573 , 35 S.E. 2d 697 ; In re Will of Brown, 194 N.C. 583 , 140 S.E. 192 ; In re Will of Lomax, 226 N.C. 498 , 39 S.E. 2d 388 ; and Batten v. Aycock, 224 N.C. 225 , 29 S.E. 2d 739 . 3.

State v. Powell

279 N.C. 608 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 10, 1971

State v. Willard, 241 N.C. 259 , 84 S.E. 2d 899 ; State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158 , 95 S.E. 2d 548 ; Robinson v. Insurance Co., 255 N.C. 669 , 122 S.E. 2d 801 .” In State v. … So far as the present record discloses, the witness Krauss had no such qualifications to make a breathalyzer test as did the witness in S. v. Cummings, 267 N.C. 300 , 148 S.E. 2d 97 , and S. v.

Roth v. McCord & Dellinger

232 N.C. 678 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 22, 1950

Brown v. … Hayes v. Elon College, 224 N.C. 11 , 29 S.E. 2d 137 ; Brown v. Truck Lines, supra.

State v. Norman

237 N.C. 205 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 25, 1953

Tate v. Board of Commissioners, 122 N.C. 661 , 29 S.E. 60 ; Rhyne v. Lipscombe, 122 N.C. 650 , 29 S.E. 57 . 2. … State v. Boykin, 211 N.C. 407 , 191 S.E. 18 ; State v. Mills, 181 N.C. 530 , 106 S.E. 677 ; State v. Brown, 159 N.C. 467 , 74 S.E. 580 ; State v. Lytle, 138 N.C. 738 , 51 S.E. 66 ; State v.

State v. Arnold

258 N.C. 563 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1963

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 , 97 L. Ed. 469 ; Cassell v. Texas, supra. This Court speaking by Ervin J. (now U. S. Senator) in Miller v. … S. v. Kelly, 216 N.C. 627 , 6 S.E. 2d 533 ; S. v. Alston, supra; S. v. Donnell, supra.”

Eckard v. Johnson

235 N.C. 538 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 7, 1952

Plaintiff embodied this view in appropriate prayers for instruction based on Brown v. Truck Lines, 227 N.C. 299 , 42 S.E. 2d 71 , and Hodges v. Johnson, 52 F. Sup. 488. … Brown v. Truck Lines, supra; Wood v. Miller, 226 N.C. 567 , 39 S.E. 2d 608 ; Motor Lines v. Johnson, 231 N.C. 367 , 57 S.E. 2d 388 ; Roth v. *542 McCord, 232 N.C. 678, 62 S.E. 2d 64 ; Costello v. Smith, supra; Virgil v.

State v. . Hall

97 N.C. 474 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1887

State v. Fishblate, 83 N. C., 654 ; State v. Commissioners, 2 Car. Law Rep., 419 (617); State v. Commissioners, 3 Jones, 399 . … ) creating that board.

State v. Browning

673 S.E.2d 662 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 2009

673 S.E.2d 662 (2009) STATE of North Carolina v. Steven Todd BROWNING. No. 550P08. Supreme Court of North Carolina. February 5, 2009. Steven T. Browning, Pro Se. LaToya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, Garry W.

Russ v. Hedgecock

358 N.C. 545 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 24, 2004

State v. . Edwards

110 N.C. 511 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1892

C., 368 , it is held to be a police regulation, and not a criminal proceeding, and this is cited with approval in State v. Brown, 46 N. C., 129 , and State v. Higgins, 72 N. C., 226 . … State v. Brown, 46 N. C., 129 ; Ward v. Bell, supra. It is also held *513 that being a civil proceeding, each party has the right to challenge peremptorily four jurors. State v. Pate, supra.

In Re the Administration of the Estate of Brown

185 N.C. 398 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 2, 1923

Brown, and that, if sold publicly, it will bring a fair price, and one much higher than had been offered by E. H. and H. E. Brown. 2. … Wynns v. Alexander, 22 N. C., 59 , citing Cannon v. Jenkins, 16 N. C. (1 Dev. Eq.), 427.

Mintz v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

236 N.C. 109 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 22, 1952

Maddox v. Brown, 233 N.C. 519 , 64 S.E. 2d 864 ; Randle v. Grady, 228 N.C. 159 , 45 S.E. 2d 35 ; Pinnix v. Griffin, 221 N.C. 348 , 20 S.E. 2d 366 , 141 A.L.R. 1164 ; Wall v. … R., 171 N.C. 328 , 88 S.E. 477 ; Board of Education v. Lumber Co., 158 N.C. 313 , 73 S.E. 994 .

St. George v. Hanson

239 N.C. 259 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 15, 1954

Board of Elections, 226 N.C. 454 , 38 S.E. 2d 566 ; White v. Comrs. of Johnston, 217 N.C. 329 , 7 S.E. 2d 825 ; Mears v. Board of Education, 214 N.C. 89 , 197 S.E. 752 ; Person v. Houghton, 186 N.C. 723 , 120 S.E. 481 . … Hayes v. Benton, 193 N.C. 379 , *264 137 S.E. 169 ; Wilkinson, v. Board of Education, 199 N.C. 669 , 155 S.E. 562 ; Harris v. Board of Education, supra.

First Presbyterian Church v. St. Andrews Presbyterian College, Inc.

254 N.C. 717 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 24, 1961

This statement of the law was quoted with approval by this Court in Restaurant, Inc. v. Charlotte, 252 N.C. 324 , 113 S.E. 2d 422 , and Castle v. Threadgill, 203 N.C. 441 , 166 S.E. 313 . Walker,' J., said in Cobb v. … Recent applications of the rule appear in Coach Lines v. Brotherhood, 254 N.C. 60 ; McDaniel v. Quackenbush, 249 N.C. 31 , 105 S.E. 2d 94 ; Railroad v. Greensboro, 247 N.C. 321 , 101 S.E. 2d 347 ; Edwards v.

Meads v. North Carolina Department of Agriculture

349 N.C. 656 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 31, 1998

See City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 , 49 L. Ed. 2d 511 (1976) (per curiam); Pollard v. Cockrell, 578 F.2d 1002 (5th Cir. 1978); Kennedy v. Hughes, 596 F. Supp. 1487 (D. Del. 1984). … See, e.g., Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. v.

Long v. . Graeber

64 N.C. 431 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1870

The principle which governs this case is laid down with great clearness in Houston v. Brown, 7 Ire. 162. The views contended for, however, in the two cases are widely different. In Houston v. … Brown the heirs at law attempted to eject the tenant by the curtesy, upon the ground that the act under consideration takes away the husband’s right to an estate by the curtesy.

J. F. White Co. v. Carroll

147 N.C. 330 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 15, 1908

Warehouse Co. v. Ozment, 132 N. C., 839 ; Bispham’s Equity, sec. 469; Ely v. Early, 94 N. C., 8 . … Lehew v. Hewett, 138 N. C., 6 . The Judge, therefore, was right when he held that there was no evidence to sustain the affirmative of the first issue, for that was virtually what he decided. Latta v. Bell, 122 N.