Case law

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.

Manganello v. Permastone, Inc.

291 N.C. 666 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1977

While rough or boisterous play in water is not dangerous per se, hazardous consequences to other swimmers and bathers are clearly reasonably foreseeable when such activities are left unattended and unrestricted. … The activity here in question, backflips done from off another’s shoulders, qualifies as a “rough or boisterous” activity.

Patapsco Guano Co. v. Bowers-White Lumber Co.

146 N.C. 187 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 27, 1907

The margin, bank or edge of said pond is clearly marked by nature and well defined. … This rule of construction would not hold good in the case of a purely artificial pond temporarily maintained, the margin or banks of which had not been long established and *190 clearly marked.

Freight Discrimination Cases

95 N.C. 434 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1886

That is, the purpose to impose the penalty must clearly appear. … Nor is there anything in the nature of a foreign railroad corporation doing such business in this State that gives it any legal advantage or immunity in any such respect.

In Re Habeas Corpus of Jones

153 N.C. 312 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 26, 1910

A substantial right, therefore, not to be forfeited or ignored except in some way or for some reason, established or recognized by the law of the land. … And further: “It appears in this ease that the child is under ten years of age, and that the petitioner and the respondents are equally qualified in every respect as fit and proper persons with whom to entrust the care and

Tyson v. City of Salisbury

151 N.C. 468 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1909

Tbis is easily demonstrated by a bare statement of tbe facts, and no argument or discussion by us is required to establish tbe fact tbat tbe members of botb bouses understood distinctly and clearly tbe provisions of tbe bill … of the qualified voters of the city, and that the requirements of the act were substantially if not fully complied Avith by the city authorities.

RGK, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

292 N.C. 668 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 13, 1977

That is clearly established here by the provisions of the bond itself. … by the prime contract would be necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff to recover on the bond.

Hartness v. Pharr.

133 N.C. 566 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1903

Tbe plaintiff duly qualified as administrator of D. W. … It is our opinion, therefore, and we so decide, as it is clearly established both by reason and authority, that the fund received in such actions must be distributed to the persons who are designated as the beneficiaries

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." … Lynde, supra , and said if there was a conflict between those cases, the Lynde case, supra , "must be restricted or qualified" so as to accord with the Barber case, supra .

C. D. Kenny Co. v. Town of Brevard

217 N.C. 269 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1940

272 The power of the town by proper ordinance to levy a tax on wholesale dealers or merchants doing business in the town is not controverted, but it is contended by plaintiffs that the tax ordinance herein attacked is so qualified … And again, “The factual situation is that clearly plaintiffs are plying their trade and doing business by delivering and soliciting the sale of bread in the city of Concord.” In S. v.

State v. Hamlet

312 N.C. 162 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 6, 1984

It probably will, but as long as these people are allowed to operate within society with almost total immunity insofar as the ultimate punishment it will continue. … In deciding whether this aggravating circumstance was properly submitted to the jury, we must first take note of certain *175 established principles.

Sugg v. Town of Greenville

169 N.C. 606 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 13, 1915

by intendment and particular clauses and provisions qualified, transferred, or rejected in order to ascertain the intention. 7. … Sugg has in tbe deed expressed the intention clearly to pass to B. B. Sugg “tbe westwardly portion of the lot theretofore conveyed by T. J.

Deal v. Enon Sanitary District

245 N.C. 74 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 28, 1956

There *80 is a marked distinction between defining with precision and exhibiting clearly the territory created and established as a sanitary district and the purported creation and establishment as a sanitary district of … It is noted that the jurisdictional petition must be signed by 51% or more of the resident freeholders; but, if and when a sanitary district has been legally created and established, the qualified voters, whether freeholders

Roberts v. . Cannon

20 N.C. 398 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1838

But however this might be there are other considerations which tend very strongly to establish the interpretation which we are inclined to adopt upon the words of the section. … The Constitution hath very clearly substituted the payment of a public tax for the freehold qualification, and required a residence of twelve, instead of a residence of six, months, but that it has introduced an entirely

Conner v. NORTH CAROLINA COUNCIL OF STATE

365 N.C. 242 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 7, 2011

In Martin , the Court noted that the “statutes clearly indicate that it is the role of the Department of Administration to investigate and negotiate lease proposals on behalf of the State and where applicable to require and … However, as discussed previously, the General Assembly clearly has delegated primary responsibility for creating the execution protocol to the DOC.

Lee v. . Patrick

31 N.C. 135 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1848

The notice, certified by Green, was not filed in the office at August term of the Court, which was the term next succeeding the qualifying of the defendant, as required by the Act, but at the November term succeeding. … That we understand clearly, to find out — standing demands, preferable to the plaintiff’s to a greater amount than the balance of $930 31.

State v. . Davis

177 N.C. 573 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 9, 1919

With regard to this, we said: “The testimony as to what was said in the road and in front of the plaintiff’s home was clearly competent. The res gestee includes what was said as. well as what was done. … This doctrine as to the competency of the cry or exclamation of a mob, or any one of the mob, while it is in the prosecution of its illegal design or purpose, has been of long standing, and was certainly established in the

Crayton v. City of Charlotte

175 N.C. 17 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 22, 1917

The act of 1915 confers the authority to issue bonds on the governing-body of the city or town, but requires the approval of the qualified voters before issuing. … Tbis does not, however, establish tbe right of tbe defendant to issue tbe bonds in controversy, because under tbe act of 1915 tbe indebtedness, computed as required by tbat act, without allowing certain deductions in tbe

Hoke County Board of Education v. State

358 N.C. 605 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 30, 2004

However, the State’s power to establish such an age does not answer the question of whether or not it must address the particular needs of those children who are, or are approaching, the established age for school admission … Nevertheless, neither side has demonstrated to the satisfaction of this Court that it is either the only qualifying means or even the only known qualifying means.