Case law

Hines v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad

95 N.C. 434 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 15, 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.

Hosiery Mills v. . Hines

184 N.C. 356 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 8, 1922

that of warehouseman to that of carrier under tbe act of Congress, but simply that “transportation” should include storage as warehouseman, with tbe ordinary liability incident to it, and tbe cases cited by the plaintiff establish … tbe bills of lading, authorizing tbe carrier to do so, not in bis own warehouse, as ordinarily done, but in a public warehouse, and this stipulation, which was approved by tbe Interstate Commerce Commission, providing for immunity

State v. . O'Neal

187 N.C. 22 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 22, 1924

The traverse raised a plain issue of fact and it was clearly the right of the State by the cross-examination to elicit any circumstances of probative value tending reasonably to show the defendant’s opportunity for the manufacture … A witness may not be examined as to any particular trait of character on a matter of general reputation, although of his own motion he may qualify a general statement, and “in no case either on direct examination or on cross-examination

State v. Ledford

315 N.C. 599 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 18, 1986

The well-established rule is that opinion testimony to the effect that a defendant’s conduct caused injury or death is clearly inadmissible as a legal conclusion. However, Dr. … Boatright was fully qualified to make. It clearly did not address a legal conclusion or standard. Dr. Boatright could not and did not testify that, in his opinion, defendant’s alleged conduct on 23 July caused Mrs.

State v. Hunter

299 N.C. 29 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 8, 1980

Clearly, the witness was better qualified than the jury to state an opinion on the facts. … But, this is clearly not what the statutory language calls for.

James v. Bartlett

359 N.C. 260 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 4, 2005

Id. § 163-182.14; see also id. § 163-182.15(b)(2) (which governs election protests and clearly contemplates appellate review of the Wake County Superior Court decision by providing that when the decision of the State Board … The plain language of the statute clearly and unambiguously states that a voter is “qualified to register and vote in the precinct in which he resides.” Id. (emphasis added).

State Ex Rel. Blount v. Spencer

114 N.C. 770 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1894

Board of Commissioners was appointed with clearly defined duties to have surveyed and mapped a certain area in which was included that part of Pamlico Sound which was within the jurisdiction of the county-of ITyde, “ whereon … of the grant was upon the land covered by the waters of Pamlico Sound, which is navigable water, and that the same was not subject to grant under the general laws regarding entries and grants, and became so subject in a qualified

Slade v. . Washburn

25 N.C. 557 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1843

This-appears more clearly from the order made at the same term, which we find in the record accompanying the case, whereby William Slade, the present plaintiff, was appointed administrator pendente lite. … experience, that these evils are becomingmore frequent, and see not how they .can be lessened until the au-thorised registers of these .courts, who are intrusted with the momentous duty of recording their acts, shall be qualified

State v. Stanfield

292 N.C. 357 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1977

It is common knowledge that accomplices often testify as a result of threats of prosecution or promises of immunity. … This conversation qualifies as an admission by the defendants, and as such, is competent evidence. State v. Edwards, 286 N.C. 140 , 209 S.E. 2d 789 (1974) ; State v.

State v. Willis

309 N.C. 451 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 27, 1983

We conclude that Officer O’Shields did not testify as an expert witness, though the State contended that O’Shields clearly is an expert in drug and especially heroin investigation and was properly allowed to testify before … He was not qualified as an expert in nicknames. He testified from his own first-hand knowledge.

Employment Security Commission v. Lachman

305 N.C. 492 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 1982

In such a situation, Respondent has failed to carry the burden of proof to establish just cause. … This Court also takes judicial notice, pursuant to G.S. § 8-4, of the federal statutory requirement of the establishment and maintenance of personnel standards on a merit basis in order for the ESC to qualify for federal

Alexander v. . Lowrance

182 N.C. 642 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1921

Section 5688 authorizes the board of aldermen of each city or town, after ascertaining in the manner provided that a majority of the qualified voters favor the issuance of school bonds, to cause the bonds to be prepared and … At the session of 1903, the General Assembly passed an act to establish a graded school for the town of Forest City.

In Re Redmond Ex Rel. Nichols

369 N.C. 490 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 17, 2017

In 2013 the General Assembly established the Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program (Compensation Program) to provide “lump-sum compensation” to any “claimant determined to be a qualified recipient … That judicial power clearly does not extend to consideration of constitutional questions, as it is a “well-settled rule that a statute’s constitutionality shall be determined by the judiciary, not an administrative board

Dailey 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 tbe same purpose- and effect, but those to which we have briefly referred will suffice to show bow firmly and unquestionably it is established, that it is not only … action of debt), but tbe defendants are entitled to answer over, and no doubt would have been permitted to do so bad it been called to tbe attention of tbe court, tbe failure to insert such permission in tbe judgment being clearly

Green v. . Kitchin

229 N.C. 450 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 24, 1948

The converse is true for the reason that courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretionary powers conferred on municipal corporations for the public welfare, unless their action is so clearly unreasonable as to … If this Court is not going to follow its own established precedents, or the law as it is written, S. v.

Powell v. . Strickland

163 N.C. 393 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1913

We see, then, very clearly what this policy is, viz., to exclude husband and wife when the evidence of either will, in a legal sense, prejudice the other; and that is not the case here. … The Court took it for granted that the evidence was otherwise competent, for there was not even any discussion of the question as to its competency under the statute, which was clearly involved in the case and presented by

Vann v. Board of Commissioners

185 N.C. 168 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 21, 1923

say that the latter two cases have already been so sufficiently distinguished from the Riddle case, supra , as to require no further or additional comment by us upon the distinction between those cases, which has been so clearly … Legislature, much of the difficulty of administration arising from disagreement, and discord, and correct interpretation of the law has disappeared, and in its stead a more progressive and effective educational system has been established

Dare County v. Smith Construction Co.

152 N.C. 23 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 25, 1910

That case is in point with the one under consideration and clearly sets forth the true principle which the courts apply with respect to such a contract as is now under consideration. … The county cannot escape the consequences of any ineompetency or neglect of duty on the part of said commissioners or committee, in the absence of fraud, even though it was clearly established that such ineompetency existed

Soles v. City of Raleigh Civil Service Commission

345 N.C. 443 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 10, 1997

In Harris , this Court clearly established that an employer’s personnel manual or policies are not part of an employee’s contract of employment unless expressly included in that *447 contract. … The State Personnel Act is, by statute, a part of each qualifying state employee’s contract. The City’s personnel policy, on the other hand, is not a state statute or city ordinance passed into law.

State Ex Rel. Lanier v. Vines

274 N.C. 486 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 27, 1968

The body of the complaint states, “The plaintiff is the duly appointed, qualified and acting Commissioner of Insurance of the State of North Carolina.” … The grant of such judicial power to the Commissioner for that purpose is clearly within the authority conferred upon the Legislature by Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution.