Case law

Williams v. Williams

299 N.C. 174 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1980

The latter phrase clearly means more than a level of mere economic survival. … Considering the statutes in pari materia, we believe that our legislature clearly intended that fault be a consideration in awarding alimony.

Brown v. Catawba Lumber Co.

117 N.C. 287 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1895

The plaintiff’s counsel contended that the court erred in inserting in the second issue the qualifying *296 words “the plaintiff himself being in no default,” and that two issues ought to have been submitted to the jury, … The well established rule is that an inconsistent verdict, or one that in connection with the pleadings requires explanation to make it harmonize completely with the pleadings and evidence and support a judgment will be set

Commissioners of Stanly County v. Snuggs

121 N.C. 394 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1897

We are of the opinion that it was competent to introduce the House Journal as proof that the acts referred to were not passed according to the requirements of the Constitution, and they established that fact. … This case is clearly to be distinguished from that of Carr v. Coke , 116 N.C. 223 , and the difference cannot be pointed out more clearly than was done by Clark, J. , who delivered the opinion in Bank v.

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.

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

Bazemore v. Bertie County Board of Elections

254 N.C. 398 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 12, 1961

The opinion continues: “In this connection, a doctrine firmly established in the law is that a State Constitution is in no matter a grant of power. … (W)hile the right of suffrage is established and guaranteed by the Constitution (Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 663-665 ; Smith v.

State v. Kornegay

313 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 27, 1985

The mere fact that she was given immunity from prosecution does not indicate coercion where there is no evidence that she was charged or would be charged with a crime. Mrs. … This evidence is clearly insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity and show that Judge Fountain did not open the session of court before issuing the warrants.

City of Winston v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.

158 N.C. 512 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 10, 1912

1909, conferred upon its government, on approval of tbe popular vote, tbe power to incur indebtedness and to issue bonds therefor, in terms as follows: “That for tbe purpose of improving streets and sidewalks, purchasing, establishing … From these considerations and the authorities cited, we take it as established in this State: 1.

Hoggard v. Jordan.

140 N.C. 610 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 27, 1906

Petitioner qualified as her administrator, 4 January, 1904. She was indebted in the sum of $75. … Her conduct brings the case clearly within the observation of Lord Hardwicke in Tomkins v.

State Ex Rel. White v. Robinson

64 N.C. 698 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1870

The suspension of the statute of limitations, and the enactment of various remedial statutes, clearly indicate the opinion of the Legislature upon this important and difficult subject. … The defendant qualified as administrator in the Spring of 1866, and the fund which his intestate held as trustee de *701 volved upon him.

Parkes v. Hermann

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2020

HERMANN Earls, J., dissenting In departing from our historic approach to novel tort claims, the majority establishes a rule that immunizes physicians from liability for their … We are applying established negligence principles and under those principles the plaintiffs have stated claims.”).

Belk v. Belk's Department Store of Columbia, S. C., Inc.

250 N.C. 99 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 15, 1959

maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Based on the findings made by the court, it is manifest that “traditional notions of fair ¡play and substantial justice” do not immunize … Courts will not interfere with the discretionary power vested in the directors with respect to dividends when honestly exercised; but when it is made to appear that the directors are acting in bad faith and clearly abusing

Austin v. Rodman.

8 N.C. 194 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1820

That such an exception to the rule of giving notice was established in the case of Bickerdike, v. Bollman, † and has been acted on in many cases since, cannot be disputed. … establishing them upon another trial. 1 The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial awarded. * 12 East.

Smith v. Mercer

276 N.C. 329 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 11, 1970

. *333 “‘(b) All evidence which reasonably tends to establish any of the elements of damages included in subsection (a), or otherwise reasonably tends to establish the present monetary value of the decedent to the persons … When the plaintiff was injured, he had a cause of action against the State because a Waiver of Immunity Act was then in effect. Thereafter, the Waiver of Immunity Act was repealed. In Lewis v. Pennsylvania R.

Newsome v. . Bunch

144 N.C. 15 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 19, 1907

. *17 It appears in tbis case that the child is under ten years of age and that the petitioner and the respondents are equally qualified in every respect as fit and proper persons with whom to entrust the care and custody … It would seem that the case comes directly and clearly within the decision of this Court in Latham v. Ellis, 116 N. C., 30 , if it is not also substantially covered by the provisions of Revisal, secs. 180 and 181.

Carroll v. . Herring

180 N.C. 369 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 17, 1920

The last clause in the above item, by which this 37 acres of land was devised, shows clearly that it was the intention of the grantor for his son, James A. … What words could the testator have used to more clearly express his desire than "Both of said tracts to the said James A.

Hull v. Roxboro.

142 N.C. 453 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 30, 1906

"Where it is acting in its governing capacity, it is not responsible, because it is then presumed to be in the exercise of a part of the power of the State, and therefore under the same immunity. … Still, they are the same —the one being the execution of the will of the other within certain established boundaries of power and in a certain locality.” Peck v. Austin, 22 Texas, 261 .

State v. Thompson

314 N.C. 618 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1985

The record clearly indicates that the defendant failed to bring this argument to the attention of the trial court. … It is well established that the State bears the burden of proof to establish the existence of aggravating factors if it seeks a term of imprisonment greater than the presumptive sentence. State v.

Mial v. Ellington.

134 N.C. 131 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1903

Adopting the settled definition of a public officer, we hold that the position comes clearly within such definition. … Judges were elected and qualified, and were thereby entitled to hold such offices for life.

Staton v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

147 N.C. 428 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 22, 1908

conferring such immunity upon the town. … The case in this respect comes clearly within the principle announced in Thomason's case in plaintiff’s appeal.