Case law

Brewer v. CAROLINA COACH COMPANY

253 N.C. 257 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 2, 1960

Daniel v. Gardner, 240 N.C. 249 , 81 S.E. 2d *260 660; Council v. Dickerson’s Inc., 233 N.C. 472 , 64 S.E. 2d 551 ; Hawkins v. Moss, 222 N.C. 95 , 21 S.E. 2d 873 . … The North Carolina case cited above in A.L.R. is Godette v. Gaskill, 151 N.C. 52 , 65 S.E. 612 , 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 265, 134 Am. St, Rep. 964.

Howard v. UNC-CHAPEL HILL

648 S.E.2d 504 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 27, 2007

HOWARD, Employee v. UNC-CHAPEL HILL, Employer and Key Risk Management Services, Carrier. No. 69P07. Supreme Court of North Carolina, June 27, 2007. Christopher G. … Browning, Jr., Solicitor General, for UNC-Chapel Hill, Jay A. Gervasi, Greensboro, for Howard.

Wells v. Consolidated Judicial Retirement System

354 N.C. 313 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 9, 2001

On 30 September 1997 plaintiff brought suit against the CJRS, the Board of Trustees of the TSERS (Board), and the State of North Carolina on the ground that he was entitled to receive his monthly retirement allowance under … See Childers v.

Woody v. Timber Co.

141 N.C. 471 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 22, 1906

Brown, J. It is contended that the deed is void under the authority of Hobbs’ case, 128 N. C., 46 . The instrument construed in that case is unlike this in every respect. … Bunch v. Lumber Co., 134 N. C., 116 . But as it is plain that the time within which the defendant may enter and remove the trees has not yet expired, the injunction was properly dissolved.

Green v. Green.

131 N.C. 533 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 18, 1902

This is an action for divorce from bed and board. … In Coble v. Coble, 55 N.

State v. . Moschoures

214 N.C. 321 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 19, 1938

Brown, being duly sworn, complains and says, that at and in said county, on, or about the 4th day of December, 1937, Chris Moschoures did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously have and keep in his possession for the purpose … S. v. Farrington, 141 N. C., 844 ; S. v. Daniels, 197 N. C., 285 , and cases there cited. The judgment below is Affirmed.

Sandy Mush Properties, Inc. v. Rutherford County

651 S.E.2d 566 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 24, 2007

The plaintiff's Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed for the limited purpose of remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of its decision in light of Robins v.

Wilmington, Onslow & East Carolina Railroad v. Commissioners of Onslow County

116 N.C. 563 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 15, 1895

Grady v. Commissioners, 74 N. C., 101 . … Frank, Jr., Chairman Board County CanvassersHill King, Secretary, et al.)

Mercer v. Frank Hitch Lumber Co.

173 N.C. 49 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 1917

Rosser v. Bynum, 168 N. C., 342 ; Aydlett v. Brown, 153 N. C., 334 ; Armstrong v. Lonon, 149 N. C., 435 ; Kerr v. Sanders, 122 N. C., 635 , etc. … The position is very well stated in Aydlett v. Brown, 153 N.

Stacy v. Merrill

363 N.C. 258 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 30, 2009

677 S.E.2d 160 (2009) Barbara STACY Administratrix of the Estate of Joshua Quentin Mitchell Stacy, Deceased v. Dr. James G. … MERRILL, in his capacity as Superintendent of Alamance-Burlington Board of Education, Al Smith, in his capacity as Director of Transportation of Alamance-Burlington Board of Education, and Jean Maness, in her capacity as

Andrews v. Haygood

662 S.E.2d 669 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 30, 2008

662 S.E.2d 669 (2008) ANDREWS v. HAYGOOD No. 57A07-2. Supreme Court of North Carolina. May 30, 2008. Pamela S. Duffy, Molly A. Orndorff, Burlington, for Charlie Brown, Trustee. Timothy P. Lehan, Raleigh, Robert M.

Keystone Driller Co. v. Worth

117 N.C. 515 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1895

Andrews v. Pritchett, 66 N. C., 387 ; Armfield v. Brown, 70 N. C., 27 . … But the Court subsequently called attention to the inadvertence and declared the ruling modified (Armfield v. Brown, supra; Lippard v. Roseman, 70 N. C., 34 , and Lippard v. Roseman 72 N.

Wally v. City of Kannapolis

365 N.C. 449 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 9, 2012

On a separate issue, the Court of Appeals, relying upon Blades v. … By its plain language section 160A-383 states that when the governing board adopts a zoning amendment, the board “shall also” approve a statement. Id.

Doe on demise of Whitehurst v. Banks

6 N.C. 346 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 15, 1818

The case of Boe on demise of Bryan v. Brown, decided at this term, settles this case. Sale for a new trial discharged.

Doe v. Roman Cath. Diocese

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 2025

The plaintiff then argued that the effect of that statute was to permit “a new cause of action” on his brown lung claim—one that essentially ignored the existing judgment. Id. at 142. … Wallace v. Bone, 304 N.C. 591, 598 (1982).

Andrews v. Haygood

662 S.E.2d 665 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 16, 2008

662 S.E.2d 665 (2008) ANDREWS v. HAYGOOD. No. 57A07-2. Supreme Court of North Carolina. May 16, 2008. Pamela S. Duffy, Molly A. Orndorff, Burlington, for Charlie Brown, Trustee. Susannah Holloway, for NCDHHS. Timothy P.

Clark v. . Dill.

208 N.C. 421 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 18, 1935

Brown v. Hutchinson, 155 N. C., 205 , 71 S. E., 302 . Upon the trial, the defendant tendered issues of title, as well as of boundary, and excepted to the refusal of the court to submit the former. Smith v. … Williams v. Hughes, 124 N. C., 3 , 32 S. E., 325 . The title was not really in dispute. Woody v. Fountain, 143 N. C., 67 , 55 S. E., 425 . The record contains no exceptive assignment of error which can be sustained.

Shaver v. Shaver

244 N.C. 311 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 26, 1956

Harris v. Fairley, 232 N.C. 555 , 61 S.E. 2d 619 ; Hoke v. Greyhound Corp., 227 N.C. 374 , 42 S.E. 2d 407 ; Lawrence v. Lawrence, 226 N.C. 221 , 37 S.E. 2d 496 ; Ridenhour v. … Brown, 69 N.C. 125 ; Combes v. Adams, 150 N.C. 64 , page 70, 63 S.E. 186 ; S. v. Casey, 201 N.C. 185 , 159 S.E. 337 .

In Re Baker

187 N.C. 257 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 27, 1924

R. v. R. R., 148 N. C., 64 , it was held: “Neither party is entitled to trial by jury until the coming in of the report and after its confirmation.” … The appellant’s brief says that he moved to “allow the report of the board of appraisers to be confirmed.” In Cahoon v. Brinkley, 168 N.

McCotter v. . Reel

223 N.C. 486 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 20, 1943

The defendants insist, therefore, that in the absence of allegation of eaprieiousness, bad faith, or disregard of law the Court is without authority to review or reverse the action of the board. Pue v. … Harris v. Board of Education, 216 N. C., 147 , 4 S. E. (2d), 328 , and cases cited. Judgment denying the writ of mandamus and dismissing the action must be entered. Beversed.