Case law

Saint Peter's Church v. Bragaw

144 N.C. 126 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 12, 1907

for what special purpose, so as to impress the legal title with a trust in respect to that particular use, or so ,as by its terms to create an estate upon condition subsequent, or a base, ór, more accurately speaking, a qualified … their presence is waived, and as the facts have been agreed upon and the parties to this submission are willing that we should decide as to the sound *135 ness of the title upon those facts, the defendant taking the risk of establishing

State v. Young

312 N.C. 669 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 30, 1985

To qualify as an expert, an individual need not be a specialist or be engaged in a particular profession or calling. … Clearly, under these circumstances the one inadvertent misuse of the word “sufficient” is not prejudicial error entitling defendant to a new sentencing hearing.

Falls Sales Co. v. Board of Transportation

292 N.C. 437 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1977

We do not believe these established rules bar the third-party action involved in the instant case. … That court held the fact that the contractor was employed by an agency of the Staté to construct the highway did not entitle it to any immunity from liability. Asheville Construction Co., supra.

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.

Unemployment Compensation Com. v. . Ins. Co.

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. … was *Page 486 involved, a status much more clearly that of independent contractor than is the case with the insurance agents here discussed.

Burnet v. Commissioners of Bladen County

184 N.C. 274 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1922

C., 321 ; and that the second election was clearly authorized by C. S., ch. 95, art. 39. On tbe other band, both of these propositions are controverted by tbe plaintiffs. … of educational work in the district already established.

Lockman v. Lockman

220 N.C. 95 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 8, 1941

.; or that it is a cause of action for which the state of the forum has not provided a court, unless it is compelled to do so by the privileges and immunities clause . . .; or possibly because procured by fraud.” … McWilliams, 216 Ala., 16 , the rule was clearly stated as follows: “The decree for alimony, so far at least as concerns past-due installments, is none the less a final decree because it may be modified by the court which

Winston Realty Co., Inc. v. GHG, INC.

314 N.C. 90 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 3, 1985

Skinner as highly qualified and highly recommended. Plaintiff hired her on 9 November 1979. As plaintiffs bookkeeper, Ms. … Clearly, in Marshall we strongly implied that a plaintiffs alleged contributory negligence is irrelevant in an action involving Chapter 75 conduct.

Edmisten v. Sands

307 N.C. 670 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 8, 1983

The legislature has also clearly indicated that the prohibition against self-dealing is not the only administrative requirement the omission of which will invoke the application of the statute. … Reg. § 1.664-3 (b)]; (5) a provision providing for the transfer of trust assets to a qualified organization in the event the named organization does not qualify under § 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code [ Treas.

Bond v. . Moore

90 N.C. 239 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1884

the trust, in order to effectuate the expressed purpose of the instrument, that purpose is ascertained by employing the ordinary rules of interpretation; and a direction to convey the lot, in the absence of restriction or qualifying … Among the trusts enumerated, the third undertakes to provide for the contingency of the death of the wife without having exercised the power conferred, clearly contemplating a remainder and limiting her estate under a preceding

Lowery v. School Trustees.

140 N.C. 33 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 22, 1905

them under the power to establish a school for white children. … The district is clearly defined, the establishment of the school and levy of the tax are made dependent upon the will of all of the qualified voters within the district at an election to be held for that purpose.

Brockenbrough v. Board of Water Commissioners

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

That water-works are held by the city or such quasi muni *17 cipal corporations as may be established by the Legislature for such purpose for public use and for public purposes is clearly shown by the Supreme Court of the … But they are held merely as a trust; in substance, the land was bought and paid for and is now clearly the property of the city.”

Strickland v. Hill

253 N.C. 198 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 19, 1960

Board of County Canvassers, 172 N.C. 797 , 90 S.E. 1005 , states: “This sec *208 tion clearly vests the board with discretionary power and imposes the duty of exercising its judgment, . . .” In Bell v. … True,- the fact that persons not legally qualified to do so acted as counters and tabulators as set forth in Hill’s affidavit would not invalidate the vote of any qualified elector. Woodall v.

Tucker v. . Eatough

186 N.C. 505 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 21, 1923

C., 268 , it is said: “A voluntary association bas no existence or power except as contained in its formal articles of agreement or established by custom acquiesced in by tbe parties to it.” … defendant was neither incorporated nor a legal entity, adding tbat even a State department like tbe Insane Asylum, or tbe Board of Education, or the State’s Prison, though created by statute, bad no power to sue and are immune

HCA Crossroads Residential Centers, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources

327 N.C. 573 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1990

These statutory provisions clearly prescribe a mandatory maximum time limit of 150 days within which the Department must act on applications for certificates of need. … Jur.2d Statutes § 230 (1974) (“In construing statutes, qualifying words, phrases, and clauses are ordinarily confined to the last antecedent, or to the words and phrases immediately preceding”); cf. State v.

State v. Craddock

272 N.C. 160 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 1967

The immunity to unreasonable searches and seizures is a privilege personal to those whose rights thereunder have been infringed. They alone may invoke it against illegal searches and seizures. … It is thoroughly established law in this State that, without regard to any previous confederation or design, when two or more persons aid and abet each other in the commission of a crime, all being present, all are principals

State v. Cook

280 N.C. 642 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 15, 1972

witness whose testimony tends to identify the defendant as the person who committed the crime charged in the indictment, and the defendant interposes timely objection and requests a voir dire or asks for an opportunity to ‘qualify … The purpose of such proposed testimony was *651 clearly to present the inference that the defendant was innocent of the charge and had nothing to fear from such a test.

Motor Co. v. . Reaves

184 N.C. 260 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 25, 1922

We might cite cases and authorities almost indefinitely to the same purpose and effect, but those to which we have briefly referred will suffice to show how firmly and unquestionably it is established, that it is not only … action of debt), but the defendants are entitled to answer over, and no doubt would have been permitted to do so had it been called to the attention of the court, the failure to insert such permission in the judgment being clearly

State Ex Rel. McIntosh v. Bethune

30 N.C. 139 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1847

that such dishonest practices might escape the vigilance of the most cautious Judge, and iftended, if they should, that notwithstanding the success in his application, the' dishonest party should not permanently have the immunities … The presumption is not, indeed, a peremptory and conclusive legal one, establishing per se the fraud.

Durham v. Cotton Mills.

141 N.C. 615 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 28, 1906

We can give to that section no other meaning unless we read into it something that is not there and clearly not intended to be there. … The State is not bound to wait until contagion is communicated from a hospital established in the heart of a city — it may prohibit the establishment of such a hospital there, because it is likely to spread contagion.