Case law

State v. . Peacock

220 N.C. 63 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 24, 1941

S. v. Levy, 187 N. C., 581 , 122 S. E., 386 . . Does this single departure invalidate the statute? The pertinent authorities suggest a negative answer. S. v. Mallard, 184 N. C., 667 , 114 S. E., 17 ; S. v. Wood, 175 N. … E., 1050 ; S. v. Brittain, 143 N. C., 668 , 57 S. E., 352 ; S. v. Lewis, 142 N. C., 626 , 55 S. E., 600 ; S. v. Barker, 107 N. C., 913 , 12 S. E., 115 .

Luther v. Luther

234 N.C. 429 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 7, 1951

Patterson v. Patterson, 230 N.C. 481 , 53 S.E. 2d 658 ; Lamm v. Lamm, 229 N.C. 248 , 49 S.E. 2d 403 ; Elder v. Barnes, 219 N.C. 411 , 14 S.E. 2d 249 ; Smithwick v. Smithwick, 218 N.C. 503 , 11 S.E. 2d 455 ; Dyer v. … Stanley v. Stanley, 226 N.C. 129 , 37 S.E. 2d 118 ; Brown v. Brown, 224 N.C. 556 , 31 S.E. 2d 529 ; Davis v. Davis, 213 N.C. 537 , 196 S.E. 819 . Eandolph County will doubtlessly refund the fine to plaintiff on request.

Golding v. Taylor

286 N.C. 334 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 3, 1974

GOLDING v. Tom F. TAYLOR. Supreme Court of North Carolina. December 3, 1974. Pope & Brown, for the defendant. Morris, Golding, Blue & Phillips, for the plaintiff.

Wilson v. . Alleghany Co.

124 N.C. 7 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 21, 1899

In August, 1898, and while the above-mentioned proceeding was still pending, the plaintiff applied to Brown, Jfor an injunction, based upon affidavit made in said proceeding, in which she alleged that the defendant company … A Judge in some cases of Special Proceedings, pending before the Clerk, may grant injunctive relief, as is held in Hunt v. Sneed, 64 N. C., 176 , cited and approved in Sprinkle v. Hutchinson, 66 N. C., 450 .

State v. . Newcomb

107 N.C. 900 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1890

, and filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, the *902 same shall be utterly void,” &c. … Muller v. Commissioners, 89 N. C., 171 ; State v. Brittain, id, 576. The statute {The Code, §3701) has not been repealed or modified.

State v. . Norris

111 N.C. 652 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1892

State v. Snuggs, 85 N. C., 541 ; State v. Hawkins, 77 N. C., 494 . … State v. Pritchard, 107 N.

Daniels v. METRO MAGAZINE HOLDING COMPANY

361 N.C. 692 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 8, 2007

654 S.E.2d 251 (2007) Sybil Lindsey DANIELS v. METRO MAGAZINE HOLDING COMPANY, L.L.C. and Bernie Reeves. No. 582P06. Supreme Court of North Carolina. November 8, 2007. Harvey L. … Kennedy, Annie Brown Kennedy, Winston-Salem, Harold L. Kennedy, III, for Daniels. William H. Moss, Raleigh, for Metro Magazine, et al. Prior report: 179 N.C.App. 533 , 634 S.E.2d 586 .

Morse v. . Heide

152 N.C. 625 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 25, 1910

When tbe said vessel bad reached tbe cruising grounds established by tbe said board of commissioners for the Cape Fear-River and bar, L. J. … George v. Hardie, 147 N. C., 88 , that the act of 1907 is constitutional and is a lawful exercise of the power vested in the Legislature.

Forte v. . Boone

114 N.C. 176 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1894

Allen v. Strickland, 100 N. C., 225 ; State v. Johnson, 109 N. C., 852 ; Clark v. Manufacturing Co., 110 N. C., 111 ; The Code, §597. … Maggett v. Roberts, 108 N. C., 174 . It inight have even been allowed after verdict {Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C., 347 ), or, indeed, in this Court. Hodge *178 v. Railroad, 108 N. C., 24, 26 ; Grant v. Rogers, 94 N.

Willard v. Huffman

250 N.C. 396 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 12, 1959

In light of the rulings in Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board-, 353 U.S. 1 , 1 L. Ed. 2d 601 , Amalgamated M.eat Gutters v. Fairlawn Meats, 353 U.S. 20 , 1 L. … See Section 160 (a), Title 29, USCA, and Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, supra. In view of what was said in Local Union No. 10, A. F. of L. v. Graham, supra; United Const. Workers, et al v. Laburnum Const.

Pruden v. . Paxton

79 N.C. 446 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1878

Jones v. Posten, 1 Ire. 166. Applyingthis rule, the devise here conveys the fee to all as tenants in common unless it is limited .as to the wife by the words, “ to be divided according to law.” … This case is unlike that of Brown v. Brown, 2 Ire. Eq. *449 309, and Bost v. Bost, 3 Jones Eq. 484 .

Pruett v. Pruett

247 N.C. 13 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 30, 1957

J., in Ellis v. … To obtain a divorce from bed and board, the law required that defendant establish one, but only one, of the grounds therefor specified in G.S. 50-7. Deaton v. Deaton, 234 N.C. 538 , 67 S.E. 2d 626 ; Brooks v.

Tennant v. Peoples Bank

190 N.C. 364 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 28, 1925

If there is error in the judgment against the school board, entitling it to a new trial, it must follow that a new trial must, be had as to the Peoples Bank, receiver, also. … Bank v. Barrow, 189 N. C., 303 , and Graham v. Warehouse, 189 N. C., 533 , are not controlling as anthorities against plaintiff’s right to recover. The judgment must be Reversed. Vaeser, J., not sitting.

Spell v. Smith-Douglas Co.

250 N.C. 269 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 6, 1959

Wall v. Trogdon, 249 N.C. 747 ; Hood v. Coach Co., 249 N.C. 534 , 107 S.E. 2d 154 ; McFalls v. Smith, 249 N.C. 123 , 105 S.E. 2d 297 ; Griffin v. Blankenship, 248 N.C. 81 , 102 S.E. 2d 451 . … Hood v. Coach Co., supra; Thompson v. DeVonde, 235 N.C. 520 , 70 S.E. 2d 424 ; Coston v. Hotel, 231 N.C. 546 , 57 S.E. 2d 793; Ross v. Drug Store, 225 N.C. 226 , 34 S.E. 2d 64; Griggs v.

Carr v. . Little

188 N.C. 100 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 21, 1924

C., 120 ; Comrs. v. Comrs., 186 N. C., 202 . … S. v. Woodside, 31 N. C., 500 ; Black’s Law Dictionary.”

Barker v. GILBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY

243 N.C. 103 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 9, 1955

Brown v. Products Co., 222 N.C. 626 , 24 S.E. 2d 334 ; Webb v. Hutchins, 228 N.C. 1 , 44 S.E. 2d 350 . … Brown v. Products Co., supra; Guthrie v. Gocking, 214 N.C. 513 , 199 S.E. 707 ; Hoke v. Greyhound Corp., 227 N.C. 412 , 42 S.E. 2d 593 . The judgment below is Reversed.

Scarborough v. Adams

264 N.C. 631 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 18, 1965

Sanitary District v. Lenoir, 249 N.C. 96 , 105 S.E. 2d 411 ; Grimesland v. Washington, 234 N.C. 117 , 66 S.E. 2d 794 ; Moore v. Board of Education, 212 N.C. 499 , 193 S.E. 732 . … Lambeth v. Thomasville, 179 N.C. 452 , 102 S.E. 775 ; Plant Food Co. v. Charlotte, 214 N.C. 518 , 199 S.E. 712 .

Boles v. Hegler

232 N.C. 327 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 9, 1950

Maddox v. Brown, ante, 244; Carruthers v. R. R., ante, 183; Samuels v. Bowers, ante, 149; Cole v. … Conley v. Pearce-Young-Angel Co., 224 N.C. 211 , 29 S.E. 2d 740 ; Nichols v. Goldston, 228 N.C. 514 , 46 S.E. 2d 320 ; *330 Thomas v. Motor Lines, 230 N.C. 122 (131), 52 S.E. 2d 377 ; Maddox v. Brown, ante, 244.

Harrell v. Midland Bd. of Adjustment

800 S.E.2d 418 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 8, 2017

McIver v. . McKinney

184 N.C. 393 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 15, 1922

Patterson v. Wilson, 101 N. C., 586 ; Francks v. Whitaker, 116 N. C., 518 ; Chewning v. Mason, 158 N. C., 579 ; Dunn v. Hines, 164 N. C., 114 ; Taylor v. Brown, 165 N. C., 157 ; McCallum v. McCallum, 167 N. C., 310 . … Brown v. Wilson, 174 N. C., 639 ; Benbow v. Moore, 114 N. C., 270 ; Conly v. Kincaid, 60 N. C., 594 ; Brothers v. Cartwright, 55 N. C., 116 ; Elliott v. Loftin, 160 N. C., 362 ; Clifton v. Owens, supra, pp. 616-617.