Case law

Raynor Ex Rel. Town of Louisburg v. Commissioners for the Town of Louisburg

220 N.C. 348 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 19, 1941

Administrative boards, although necessarily called upon to find facts upon which they base their action, are not usually immune from review of their conclusions, although there may be some evidence to support them, unless … Without attempting an exact or all-inclusive definition, it is manifest that the language does not apply to a condition which may clearly be foreseen in abundant time to take remedial action before serious damage to the health

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

In Re Williams

269 N.C. 68 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 20, 1967

.” *78 The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; * * It is well established by numerous … Clearly, these constitutional provisions do not provide immunity for every act which one’s conscience permits him to do, or even for every act' which one’s conscience classifies as required by ethics, nor do they shield the

Storm v. Town of Wrightsville Beach

189 N.C. 679 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 20, 1925

We think they are, and “a vote of the majority of the qualified voters therein” is not necessary. … This provision is mandatory and the proposition established by the decision in Smathers v. Comrs., 125 N. C., 480 , 34 S. E., 554 . See, also, Glenn v. Wray, 126 N. C., 730 ; Black v. Comrs., 129 N. C., 121 ; Comrs. v.

Lloyd v. Babb

296 N.C. 416 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1979

Plaintiff in Putnam was a student in Andover, Massachusetts, who had clearly severed all ties with his prior home. … All of them clearly require that in order for a person to establish a new domicile in a place (1) he must have abandoned his prior home and (2) he must have a present intention to make that place his new home.

In Re the Assessment of Additional North Carolina & Orange County Use Taxes Against Village Publishing Corp.

312 N.C. 211 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 6, 1984

This language clearly demonstrates that the use tax is “an economic regulation generally applicable to all businesses,” and not just the press. … In fact, a newspaper does not qualify for this exemption, nor fail to qualify for it, solely by virtue of whether it is sold or given away.

State v. . Dunn

134 N.C. 663 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 16, 1904

The law upon the subject is clearly stated in Gorman v. Russell , 14 Cal. 531 . … We think there was also error in the instruction that the adjectives "benevolent" and "religious" do not qualify the words "society and congregation."

Hambright v. . Carroll

204 N.C. 496 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 12, 1933

Ieav tbat Avbere an estate is given to a person generally or indefinitely Avitb a poAver of disposition, or to him, bis heirs and assigns forever, it carries a fee, and any limitation over or qualifying expression of less … In considering the contention that the plaintiff acquired a defeasible fee, we must keep in mind two clearly established principles: (1) a fee may be limited after a fee by way of executory devise; but “if one devises in

Harrison v. North Carolina Railroad

194 N.C. 656 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1927

Nor is tbis rule essentially different from the one heretofore established by our own decisions. … The evidence offered by the plaintiff, it seems to us, clearly shows that plaintiff’s intestate failed to take proper care and precaution for his own safety, hence it must be declared that, under established rules of law,

State ex rel. Carter v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad

126 N.C. 437 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 1900

The law never’ intended to create a criminal immune by any such process of legal vaccination. … C., 24 , but we think that case can be clearly distinguished from the one at bar.

Frazier v. Board of Commissioners

194 N.C. 49 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 10, 1927

Groom , 64 N.C. 244 , is to be rigidly adhered to save in the clearly defined exception made in Bank v. Comrs. , 119 N.C. 214 ." … Bonds issued or taxes levied by such municipal corporations to establish or maintain schools, without the approval of the majority of the qualified voters therein, are invalid and unlawful, because of the provisions of Article

Ocean Hill Joint Venture v. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources

333 N.C. 318 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 12, 1993

Clearly, a prerequisite for application of N.C.G.S. § 1-54 is that there must be an “action or proceeding.” … In contrast, the civil penalty at issue in the instant case was established by an administrative agency, not by court action. Thus, neither Holley nor Hewlett applies.

Redding v. . Findley

57 N.C. 216 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1858

The answers and proofs establish very satisfactorily the capacity of the party to the deed, and that there is nothing in the manner in which it was obtained to impeach it. … In reference to that point, Chief Justice Henderson, states clearly, that there can be no difference between a trust declared by deed, or by will, and that, if it be illegal, a trust will result in both cases.

Glenn v. Southern Express Co.

170 N.C. 286 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1915

This is clearly shown by the opinion in the last case, in which the Court says: “Whenever, however, a particular power of the General Government is one which must necessarily be exercised by it, and Congress remains silent … Those rights are best secured, in our government, by the observance, upon the part of all, of such regulations as are established by competent authority to promote the common good.

Turner v. City of Reidsville

224 N.C. 42 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 1, 1944

It was not controverted that in tbe election called and held pursuant to an ordinance of tbe City Council of tbe City of Reidsville, and in accordance with tbe general statutes and city charter, a majority of tbe qualified … opinion is in full support of tbe view tbat tbe courts will not interfere witb tbe lawfully expressed will of tbe community, in tbe interpretation of its interests and prospective needs, unless tbe objects to be attained are clearly

State v. . Montgomery

183 N.C. 748 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 29, 1922

The State's evidence, if believed, was amply sufficient to establish all the essential elements of the crime. … But upon the facts it did not appear that the juror was not qualified.

In Re Will of Dupree

163 N.C. 256 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 15, 1913

This being the correct position, we are of opinion that his Honor clearly made the proper ruling in dismissing the proceedings. … Time, this position was qualified to some extent in Summerlin v. Cowles, 101 N.

Hinton v. . State Treasurer

193 N.C. 496 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 6, 1927

Eor the promotion of agriculture, the Federal Government has established Farm Loan Banks, and this act is modeled after the act of Congress on that subject. … The present act, we think, is not only for a public purpose, but is for the good of the whole, and comes clearly within the limitations and restrictions of the Constitution of this State.

State v. Hobbs

Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 2020

Hobbs had established a prima facie case was not moot. Further, the Court of Appeals erred as a matter of law and the trial court clearly erred in ruling that Mr. … The Court of Appeals reiterated this Court’s well-established principle that, “[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id.

State v. Eppley

282 N.C. 249 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 15, 1972

While inaccurately named, the doctrine is well established and was thus stated by Chief Justice Pearson in State v. … Clearly, Jones v. United States, supra, does not extend the protection of the Fourth Amendment to trespassers. Annot., 78 A.L.R. 2d 246 ; Annot., 4 L.Ed. 2d 1999 , 2012.