Case law

Taylor v. Johnston

289 N.C. 690 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 14, 1976

Cedar Company, 142 N.C. 411 , 55 S.E. 304 ; Batts v. Batts, 128 N.C. 21 , 38 S.E. 132 ; Wyman v. Taylor, 124 N.C. 426 , 32 S.E. 740 ; Bernhardt v. Brown, 122 N.C. 587 , 29 S.E. 884 ; 65 Am. S. R. 725 ; Basnight v. … In Walston v. Applewhite & Co., 237 N.C. 419 , 75 S.E. 2d 138 , Justice Denny, later Chief Justice, speaking for the Court, reaffirmed the rule stated in Board of Education v.

State v. . Baker

83 N.C. 649 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1880

The form adopted in this case, we believe, is that in common use in this state, and is indirectly sanctioned in State v. Woody, 2 Jones, 335 . … State v. Brown, 82 N. C., 585 . The motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled. This will be certified. Per Curiam. No error.

People's National Bank of Fayetteville v. McKethan

84 N.C. 582 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1881

This entry of the action of the board of directors was introduced as tending to show: 1. … May v. Gentry, 4. Dev. & Bat., 117.

State v. Tucker

317 N.C. 532 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 12, 1986

State v. Brown, 312 N.C. 237, 248-49 , 321 S.E. 2d 856, 861 (1984). … State v. Brown, 312 N.C. 237 , 321 S.E. 2d 856 , strongly supports the proposition that the erroneous jury instructions in this case constituted plain error.

In re J.R.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 16, 2022

Brown, “Anything else?” Dr. … Brown responded that she had nothing more to share with the court. Respondent’s counsel then cross-examined Dr. Brown.

State v. . Patrick

79 N.C. 655 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1878

In State v. … We cite the following cases merely as a reference to the several phases in which the question of description of stolen property has been considered': State v. Brown, 1 Dev. 137; State v. Godet, 7 Ire. 210; State v.

Russell v. Ayer

120 N.C. 180 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 15, 1897

C., 545 , and as to other officers, County Board v. State Board, 106 N. C., 81 , though of course it will not issue when any discretion by the officer is to be exercised. Bu rton v. Furman, 115 N. C., 166 ; Boner v. … C., 639 ; Brown v. Turner, 70 N. C., 93 .

Ducker v. . Venable

126 N.C. 447 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 1900

County Board of Education v. State Board of Education, 106 N. C., 81 ; Rogers v. Jenkins, 98 N. C., 129 , cases cited by defendant; High on Extraordinary Remedies, sec. 353; Marbrey v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 49 ; Kendall v. … The defendant relies on County Board, etc., v. State Board, etc., and Rogers v. Jenhins, supra. We do not think these eases sustain his contention, but are authority for the plaintiff.

Smith v. . Ritch

196 N.C. 72 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 26, 1928

I set the nail in the board. Mr. Thompson was sawing the boards and pushing them up to me. … Thompson, his helper, was sawing the boards and pushing them up to him. He started the nail in the board and pushed the board in place, and reached out to nail it with his other hand.

State v. . Morgan

19 N.C. 348 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1837

In Parkes and Brown’s case, 2 East, Pl. Cr. 992, Parkes forged the note; but there was no evidence that he ever had the note in his possession in Middlesex; for his accomplice Brown passed it. … The case of the State v. Benton at the last term approved and followed. The other opinions of the Court to which the prisoner excepted, seem to us to be also correct.

Denson v. Davis

256 N.C. 658 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 11, 1962

Clarence Brown, a V-C Fertilizer dealer in Tarboro bid in the property. Mr. Brown was an agent of V-C at the time he bid in the property. … Brown is a peanut dealer in Tarboro and sells V-C fertilizer. He buys fertilizer from us and sells it. He is not a subordinate of mine. He was buying for the Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corporation at this sale.

State v. . Simmons

143 N.C. 613 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 12, 1907

State v. Dixon, 114 N. C., 850 ; State v. Reams, 121 N. C., 556 ; State v. Brown, 125 N. C., 704 . … Our -case is governed by State v. Dixon, 114 N. C., 850 ; State v. Pigford, 117 N. C., 748 ; State v. Brown, 125 N. C., 704 .

Justice v. . Asheville

161 N.C. 62 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1912

In Paulsen v. … It was also said in Raleigh v.

Revis v. . Ramsey

202 N.C. 815 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1932

Wellons v. Lassiter, 200 N. C., 474 , 157 S. E., 434 ; Phillips v. Ray, 190 N. C., 152 , 129 S. E., 177 ; Dockery v. Fairbanks, 172 N. C., 529 , 90 S. E., 501 ; May v. Lumber Co., 119 N. C., 96 , 25 S. … E., 721 ; Henry v. Hilliard, 120 N. C., 479 , 27 S. E., 130 ; Roulhac v. Brown, 87 N. C., 1 ; S. v. Evans, 74 N. C., 324 . Tbe motion made at tbe February Term is different from tbe one lodged at tbe October Term.

Bigham v. . Foor

201 N.C. 14 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 20, 1931

Brann v. Hanes, 194 N. C., 571 , 140 S. E., 292 ; Gower v. Carter, 195 N. C., 697 , 143 S. E., 513 ; S. v. Carter, 194 N. C., 293 , 139 S. E., 604 ; Roanoke Rapids v. Patterson, 184 N. C., 135 , 113 S. … E., 603 ; Hannon v. Grizzard, 89 N. C., 115 . The constitutionality of chapter 75, Public Laws 1929, was upheld in Ashley v. Brown, 198 N. C., 369 , 151 S. E., 725 . The case of White v. Lumber Co., 199 N.

Grimsley v. Nelson

342 N.C. 542 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 9, 1996

The majority also cites Brown v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 285 N.C. 313 , 204 S.E.2d 829 (1974). However, the instant case is distinguishable from Brown . … In Brown v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 285 N.C. 313 , 204 S.E.2d 829 (1974), the statute of limitations had run on the plaintiff at the time the action was filed.

Ballou v. . Road Com.

182 N.C. 473 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 23, 1921

In the case of Comrs. v. Bank , 181 N.C. 347 , speaking of this identical provision, it was said: "The present board cannot estop the option which, under the statute, they or their successors may exercise." … Proctor v. Comrs., ante , 56. Under these decisions we think the second question must, therefore, be answered in the negative, rather than in the affirmative.

Windsor Bargain House v. Watson

148 N.C. 295 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 16, 1908

In Brown v. Brown, 109 N. C., 124 , the ’Court held: “1. … And in Thigpen v. Maget, 107 N.

State v. Cornell

281 N.C. 20 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 12, 1972

State v. Ray, 274 N.C. 556 , 164 S.E. 2d 457 ; State v. Wright, 274 N.C. 380, 163 S.E. 2d *31 897; State v. Brown, 271 N.C. 250 , 156 S.E. 2d 272 ; State v. Lowry and State v. … State v. Yoes and Hale v. State, 271 N.C. 616 , 157 S.E. *32 2d 386; Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 , 73 S.Ct. 379 , 97 L.ed. 469; State v.

Dennis v. City of Albemarle

242 N.C. 263 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 25, 1955

Defendant contends that delivery to the City Clerk was not presentation to the Board of Commissioners, citing Nevins v. Lexington, supra. We need not consider whether this, standing alone, would be sufficient. … Ivester v. Winston-Salem, 215 N.C. 1 , 1 S.E. 2d 88 ; Perry v. High Point, 218 N.C. 714 , 12 S.E. 2d 275 .