Case law

Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance

215 N.C. 479 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 3, 1939

This doctrine of immunity, protecting instrumentalities of either the State or the Federal Government from interference at the hands of the other, developed by Marshall (McCulloch v. … Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316, 432, 436 ) to aid the perpetuation of the dual sovereignty established by our Constitution, is not undergoing a process of expansion.

State v. Montgomery

183 N.C. 747 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 29, 1922

Tbe State’s evidence, if believed, was amply sufficient to establish all tbe essential elements of tbe crime. … But upon tbe facts it did not appear that tbe juror was not qualified.

Desmond v. News & Observer Publ'g Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 14, 2020

Moreover, plaintiff stated: “I guarantee that if you ask another qualified examiner, a qualified firearms examiner, what they – to go ahead and examine it under the microscope, that they will come to the same conclusion … Schwartz advised Hendrikse to “do whatever’s comfortable” and that if he spoke with Locke, “make sure you qualify your opinions as much as you think they should be qualified.”

State Ex Rel. Pate v. Oliver

104 N.C. 458 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1889

That said administrator never attempted to rent, lease or run said mill after he qualified. Talbot & Sons made no deduction from the amount due for use of said mill. … This is the order of liability established by law, and is not to be disturbed unless the testator plainly expresses a contrary intention.

Den Ex Dem. Wood v. Sparks

18 N.C. 389 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1835

The ordinary hath very properly established certain ' rules' of evidence by which the fact of such refusal may be made out to his .entire satisfaction. … The forbearing to qualify is therefore prima facie evidence of refusal.

Mitchell v. Downs

252 N.C. 430 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 27, 1960

the will must be observed and performed by such administrator, both with respect to real and personal property”; that “such administrator has all the rights and powers, discretionary or otherwise, unless a contrary intent clearly … Poulos which if established will constitute a debt of said estate, and funds are in the hands of the Clerk, as shown in return to writ of certiorari, which would indicate that factually the estate has not been settled, and

Hooker v. . Montague

123 N.C. 154 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 6, 1898

as to produce an income, pay to each the profit arising from her share during her entire life, and then after her death to pay to her "individual heirs" something, but whether the principal or only the interest does not clearly … It is a well established principle that executory trusts do not come within the operation of the rule in Shelley's case; and it is difficult to distinguish this case from that of Saunders v. Edwards , 55 N.C. 134 .

Swindall v. . Swindall

43 N.C. 285 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1852

. *286 The answer of the defendant, Swindall, admits that his motive for qualifying as executor was that charged in the bill; but it denies, positively, thathe received, found, or took after his father’s death, either of … It is true, that but one witness speaks directly to each precise sum; but they are both sustained and corroborated by circumstances, and the testimony of other witnesses, which concur in establishing, very clearly, that the

State v. Brunson

327 N.C. 244 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 26, 1990

In jury trials, the established federal rule is identical to North Carolina’s rule. See State v. … It is a bright-line rule that clearly identifies the point in time at which jeopardy attaches.

State v. Dobbins

277 N.C. 484 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 20, 1971

Clearly, probable cause existed to look beneath the papers for the barrel of the gun. … Consequently, the evidence for the State clearly established the defendant’s violation of the curfew ordinance by his unexplained presence on the streets.

State v. . Hall

224 N.C. 314 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 24, 1944

Only in case of failure to establish a violation of law is the restoration of the liquor permitted. G.S., 18-13. … Clearly the shipment was being diverted from permitted channels.

Brannon v. North Carolina State Board of Elections

331 N.C. 335 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 8, 1992

of eight years and until their successors are elected and qualified.” … elected and qualified.

Rowland v. . Rowland

93 N.C. 214 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1885

For instance, Judge Blackstoxe iu his Commentaries, vol. 2, p. 298, has said: “That the office of the habendum is to lessen, enlarge, explain, or qualify the premises, but not to contradict or be repugnant to the estate granted … This rule of interpretation is clearly announced in Bacon’s Abridgment, vol. 1, pp. 434-5, citing in support of the position, Rolle Abr., 838; Coke Lit., 21a, Bro. Tit. Fact, 20; Shepherd’s Touchstone, 200.

Miller v. Carolina Coast Emergency Physicians, LLC

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2022

¶ 17 This argument is untenable in light of the precedent we established in Preston. … Thus, as Harnett Health implicitly concedes, the record establishes that Dr.

Willis v. Mutual Loan & Trust Co.

183 N.C. 267 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 5, 1922

In which case the habendum may lessen, enlarge, explain, or qualify, but not totally contradict or be repugnant to the estate granted in the premises. … Tbe distinction between a determinable fee and an estate created under tbe rule in Shelley’s case is clearly drawn in numerous decisions. Ward v. Jones, 40 N. C., 404 ; Whitesides v. Cooper, 115 N. C., 570 ; May v.

Baker v. Martin

330 N.C. 331 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 6, 1991

Clearly the scope of this section was narrowed by the amendment so that it applies only to election to office. The section is not affected by N.C.G.S. § 7A-142. Even if we concede that N.C. Const, art. … As Justice Mitchell himself stated for the Court in Preston: [I]t is firmly established that our State Constitution is not a grant of power. McIntyre v. Clarkson, 254 N.C. 510, 515 , 119 S.E.2d 888, 891 (1961).

States' Rights Democratic Party v. North Carolina State Board of Elections

229 N.C. 179 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 8, 1948

Manifestly no court action was contemplated during this period, as the present proceeding clearly demonstrates. … The writ is available, not to establish a right, but to enforce a right already established. My vote is to reverse the judgment and dismiss the proceeding.

Snipes v. Camp Manufacturing Co.

152 N.C. 42 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 25, 1910

C., 819 , essentially qualifying, if it does not expressly overrule, this same case as it appears in 130 N. C., 344 . … It was held that the intestate was clearly guilty of contributory negligence, and that under the facts and 'attendant circumstances there was nothing to indicate to the engineer that the intestate was in a position of peril

Johnson v. . Baker

7 N.C. 318 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 5, 1819

maintained and educated •out of the profits and income of his property: and this shews that the time of enjoyment of the property was postponed, with the twofold view of benefit to the. wife, and that his son should be qualified … The case of Boraston in 3 Coke, 19, establishes this doctrine; but Mansfield v. Dugard, in Gilbert’s Eq. Rep. is so much in point that it merits particular observation.

State v. Bray

35 N.C. 289 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1852

It then prescribes that marriage shall be by license, or by publication of bans by any minister of the Gospel, qualified as in the act before prescribed. … The acts clearly recognize in that church the distinction between the cure oí souls, and the cure of a parish; for the authority to perform the ceremony belonged to every Clergyman, whether Bishop. Priest, or Deacon.