Case law

Plott v. . Comrs.

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 the … a majority of the qualified voters of the nontaxing territory.

Salmon v. . Pearce

223 N.C. 587 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 24, 1943

Ed., 406 , and which do not characterize or qualify an act presently done within the scope of the agency, Nance v. R. R., 189 N. O., 638, 127 S. … They clearly come under tbe hearsay rule. Even if admitted, tbe statement made tends to show tbat Pearce bad completed bis work and was at tbe time on bis way borne. Creech v. Linen Corp., supra; McLamb v.

Adcock v. Perry

305 N.C. 625 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 1982

Perry clearly intended to devise his wife a life estate only, coupled with a limited power to dispose of the property to meet her personal needs. … in all its parts if such course is consistent with the established rules of law and the intention of the testator.

Mayo v. Commissioners of Washington

40 L.R.A. 163 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 8, 1898

Snuggs , 121 N.C. 394 , and the question must then be submitted to and ratified by a majority of qualified voters thereof. … The question of establishing electric lights was not involved in that case.

Clark v. Asheville Contracting Co., Inc.

316 N.C. 475 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 6, 1986

The special provision also set forth lengthy requirements establishing the maximum angle for slopes created by disposal of the waste, requirements for covering the waste with earth and seeding and mulching. … DOT argues that these provisions in the contract clearly show that the disposal of waste rock from the highway project on the property chosen by the Company was not required by the State and was solely for the convenience

Moose v. Board of Commissioners

172 N.C. 419 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 9, 1916

At an election called and held for the purpose aforesaid, a majority of the qualified voters of the county voted in favor of the bond issue. … Comrs. , 145 N.C. 179 , "When the people have clearly ordained what shall be done, we, as judges, have nothing to do but to obey and to execute their will.

State v. Phillips

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 23, 2024

This case presents us with the opportunity to clarify the castle doctrine as established by the legislature. … PHILLIPS Opinion of the Court proportionality of defendant’s force unless the jury found that either (1) defendant did not qualify to invoke the castle doctrine, or (2) defendant qualified

Thornton v. . Thornton and Others

63 N.C. 211 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1869

This principle will be found established in a number of cases. Bizzell v. Smith, 2 Dev. Eq, 27; Cooper v. Wilcox, 2 D. & B. Eq. 90; Nelson v. Williams, 2 D. & B. Eq. 118; Pipkin v. Bond, 5 Ire. Eq. 91; Carter v. … It remains to inquire, how the acts of the defendant Hins-dale, are qualified by these principles. At March Term 1868, of Cumberland. County Court, the defendant Hinsdale, recovered a judgment against A. G-.

Young v. Woodall

343 N.C. 459 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 13, 1996

The defendants and the amicus curiae brief filed by the North Carolina Association of Police Attorneys advance several public policy arguments in favor of absolute immunity. … N.C.G.S. § 20-145 clearly states that "[t]his exemption shall not, however, protect the driver ... from the consequence of a reckless disregard of the safety of others." (Emphasis added.)

Midyette v. . Grubbs

145 N.C. 85 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 25, 1907

These authorities also clearly establish that, on the expiration of the time stated in such a contract within which the timber may be removed, all right in the vendee shall cease and determine, and the estate in so much of … Our decisions, then, having established the principle (89) that standing timber is realty, "as much part of the realty as the soil itself" ( Douglas, J. , in Lumber Co v.

State v. Moore

301 N.C. 262 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1980

In the present case where there is no evidence to show that the Turners were accomplices in the shooting, testifying under a grant of immunity from the State, or otherwise clearly interested witnesses, whether the Turners … It is not substantive in nature and would not clearly exculpate defendant if believed.

Lacy v. . Bank

183 N.C. 374 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 19, 1922

second, as in violation of Article VII, section 7, of the Constitution, which prohibits municipal corporations from contracting debts and levying taxes except for necessary expenses, unless approved by a majority of the qualified … The position is presented and clearly approved in principle in the Collie case, supra .

State v. Phillips

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 23, 2024

This case presents us with the opportunity to clarify the castle doctrine as established by the legislature. … PHILLIPS Opinion of the Court proportionality of defendant’s force unless the jury found that either (1) defendant did not qualify to invoke the castle doctrine, or (2) defendant qualified

Jones v. Commissioners of Person County

107 N.C. 248 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1890

It appears, we think, very clearly, from the evidence, that they purported to do so by proper orders and action, substantially in all respects, in pursuance of, and as required by, that statute. … Thus is established the equation of capitation and property taxation contended for by the plaintiffs.

State v. Long

316 N.C. 60 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 18, 1986

In exercising his discretion the trial judge determined that defendant’s statement was not made sufficiently early in the criminal process to qualify as a mitigating factor. … In the instant case the trial judge was clearly acting under a misapprehension of the law when he determined that the penalty for first degree burglary, a Class C felony, was a mandatory life sentence.

Smith v. Proctor.

139 N.C. 314 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 17, 1905

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 the premises, the habendum … The deed before us is within the first exception so clearly stated.

State Ex Rel. Cook v. Meares

116 N.C. 582 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1895

plaintiff was elected three days before the act was There is no doubt of the plaintiff's being elected, and it is contended signed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. that the legislative will, so clearly … That an election was so held for two justices, the constitutional amendment was adopted, and the justices so elected qualified and took charge of their offices.

State v. . Davis

214 N.C. 787 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1939

C., 721 : “There is a presumption of law that every man intends the natural consequences of his acts, but this presumption has no other or greater effect than to establish a prima facie case,” or as more clearly stated by … , distinct, substantive matter of exemption, immunity or defense, beyond the essentials of the legal definition of the offense itself, the onus of proof as to such matter is upon the defendant.

N.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. Moore

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2022

Clearly, the distinction between constitutional amendments and ordinary statutes was not invented by the trial court in this case; it was established by the people themselves as inscribed in the North Carolina … ¶ 114 Proposing amendments to our state constitution is a power clearly granted to the General Assembly.

Rorrer v. Cooke

313 N.C. 338 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 7, 1985

Therefore, the first criterion established by Hodges is not at issue. … App. 1976), cert. denied, 546 S.W. 2d 810 (1977); Haskell, The Trial Lawyer’s Immunity from Liability for Errors of Judgment, 1979 The Trial *359 Lawyer’s Guide 87. Cf.