Case law

State v. . Long

81 N.C. 563 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1879

State v. Long, 76 N. C., 254 . … The case states that the order of appointment was delivered by him to the clerk of the board, when the justices of the peace composing the board were not present; and no order of the board relieving the defendant on the condition

In Re Broughton Estate

210 N.C. 62 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 29, 1936

The trial court held that the case was controlled by the decision in Little v. Raleigh, 195 N. C., 793 , 143 S. E., 827 . The two cases are not alike. … Here, the traffic conditions as found by the board, “have materially changed since the former application was acted on in 1932.”

Commissioners of Wake v. City of Raleigh

88 N.C. 120 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1883

The object of the present action is the recovery of moneys alleged to belong to the plaintiffs, as a board of education for the county, collected and paid into the treasury of the city of Raleigh. … Railroad v. Morrison, 82 N. C., 141 , and again recognized in Neal v. Becknell, 85 N. C., 299 . The force of the decision is not impaired by the ruling in McPeters v. Ray, 85 N.

In Re Watson

273 N.C. 629 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 8, 1968

Jones v. Board of Education, 185 N.C. 303 , 117 S.E. 37 . … Language to the same, effect is found in Buchko v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 196 Pa. Super. 559 , 175 A. 2d 914 , and Watson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 176 Pa.

North Carolina Ass'n of Electronic Tax Filers, Inc. v. Graham

333 N.C. 555 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 7, 1993

In either situation the critical consideration is the overall effect of the statute on both local and interstate activity. *566 Brown-Forman Distillers v. N.Y. Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 578-79 , 90 L. … Sears, Roebuck and Co. v.

Wilmington v. . Bryan

141 N.C. 666 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 28, 1906

Co. v. Williams , 91 N.C. 69 ; Ballard v. Ins. Co. , 119 N.C. 187 . … Mial v. Ellington , 134 N.C. 131 ; Missouri v. Walker, supra; Pennie v. Reis , 132 U.S. 464 .

Moreland v. . Wamboldt

208 N.C. 35 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1935

Thornton v. Brady, 100 N. C., 38 ; Dixon v. Osborne, 201 N. C., 489 . … See, also, Dula v. School Trustees, 177 N. C., 426 , and cases there cited. Reversed.

Hines v. . Rocky Mount

162 N.C. 409 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 28, 1913

may create and appoint a board of health to exercise and carry out such powers under the supervision and control of the first mentioned board. … Smith v. Sedalia , 182 Mo., 1 ; Grantham v. Gibson , 41 Wn. 125 . Downs v.

State v. Tanner

364 N.C. 229 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2010

State v. Tanner, 193 N.C. App. at 157, 666 S.E.2d at 850-51. … ANALYSTS In State v.

State v. . Mosley

212 N.C. 766 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1938

Motion of the State to remand the cause for correction of the record will be allowed in accordance with S. v. Brown , 203 N.C. 513 , 166 S.E. 396 . Remanded.

Hornthal v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

166 N.C. 602 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 23, 1914

Telegraph Co. v. Brown, 34 Sup. Ct. Reporter (U. S.), p. 955. In that case it appeared that the telegram was sent from South Carolina to Washington, D. C., and the negligence occurred in the latter place. … With reference to the facts as stated in the Brown case, the Court, by Mr.

In Re Harris

183 N.C. 633 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 2, 1922

In Mills v. … This principle of interpretation as to the meaning of these amendments had been previously announced in Brown v.

Bailey v. . Light Co.

212 N.C. 768 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1938

as said board is now constituted. … directors of the corporation is challenged, on the principle of Gorrell v.

The People of N.C. Ex Rel . Norfleet v. . Staton, Jr.

73 N.C. 546 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1875

In Ellis v. … Deaf and Dumb Asylum, the de facto Board removed Ellis and appointed another as steward, and this Court said, “ We hold that acts of this de facto Board, in the discharge of the ordinary duties of the Board, are to have the

Brunswick County v. . Trust Co.

206 N.C. 127 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 1934

In Pangle v. … In Morton v.

Brookshire v. Asheville Electric Co.

152 N.C. 669 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 27, 1910

Brown, J. … While, possibly, not necessary to a decision of tbis case, yet we deem it proper to say for future guidance that we approve tbe opinion in Hemphill v. Lumber Co., 141 N.

Agricultural & Mechanical College v. Lacy

130 N.C. 364 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 17, 1902

S. v. Davis , 129 N.C. 570 . … Its management and control, and the care and preservation of all its property, are vested in the board of trustees.

State v. . Peters

107 N.C. 876 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1890

State v. Brown, 79 N. C., 642 . … State v. Collins, 85 N. C , 511; State v. Brown, 79 N. C., 642 .

Gibbs v. . R. R.

199 N.C. 806 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 20, 1930

The judgment is affirmed upon the authority of Brown v. Express Co. , 192 N.C. 25 , 133 S.E. 414 , and Sumrell v. R. R. , 152 N.C. 269 , 67 S.E. 585 . No error.

Thompson v. Crump.

138 N.C. 32 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 4, 1905

Brown, J., after stating the facts: The application of the Buie in Shelley’s Case to the item of the will by virtue of which James W. … Dawson v. Quinnerly, 118 N. C., at 188. In holding that the interest of James W.