Case law

State v. Snipes

161 N.C. 242 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 7, 1912

S. v. Perry, 157 N. C., 661 ; S. v. Powell, 100 N. C., 525 ; S. v. Bean, 91 N. C., 554 ; S. v. Cohen, 84 N. C., 771 ; In re Wilksbarre, 103 Fed., 620 . … R. v.

State v. . Siler

169 N.C. 314 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1915

C., 643 , and S. v. Van Doran, 109 N. C., 864 , as to practitioners of medicine and surgeons. In S. v. … Justice Walker, S. v. Hicks, 143 N. C., 689 . In S. v. Biggs, 133 N. C., 729 , and in S. v. MacKnight, 131 N.

Pridgen v. . R. R. Service Co. v. . R. R.

203 N.C. 62 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1932

Brown v. R. R. , 202 N.C. 256 ; Phifer v. Berry , 202 N.C. 388 . … The standards prescribed for determining whether the proposed newly discovered evidence will warrant a new trial are contained in Brown v. Sheets . 197 N.C. 268 , 148 S.E. 233 .

McCless v. . Meekins

117 N.C. 35 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1895

In Tucker v. … Cited: Coal Co. v. Ice Co. , 118 N.C. 236 ; Hutchins v. Durham, ib. , 468; Williams v. Comrs. , 119 N.C. 525 ; McDonald v. Morrow, ib. , 677; Caldwell v. Wilson , 121 N.C. 469 ; Greene v.

State v. . Snead

228 N.C. 37 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 8, 1947

E., 730 ; S. v. Brown, 207 N. C., 156 , 176 S. E., 260 . … S. v. Stone, 224 N. C., 848 , 32 S. E. (2d), 651 ; S. v. Peterson , 225 N. C., 540 , 35 S. E. (2d), 645 ; S. v. Davis, 223 N. C., 381 , 26 S. E. (2d), 869 ; S. v. Singleton, 183 N. C., 738 , 110 S. E., 846 .

Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Robert G. Lassiter & Co.

208 N.C. 209 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 1935

In Armistead v. Hammond, 11 N. … In consequence of this and other decisions of this Court, chapter 38, Public Laws 1844, was passed, and in Brown v. Pike, 74 N.

Jeffress v. Town of Greenville

154 N.C. 490 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 5, 1911

R. v. Davis, 19 N. C., 451 ; Phifer v. R. R., 72 N. C., 433 ; R. R. v. McCaskill, 94 N. C., 746 ; S. v. Jones, supra; S. v. Lyle, 100 N. C., 497 ; R. R. v. R. R., 116 N. C., 924 . … Phifer v. R. R., supra; R. R. v. R. R., supra; Cherokee Nation v. R. R., 135 U. S., 641 . What was said in Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.

State v. King

20 N.C. 521 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1839

Grendley v. Barker, 1 Bos. & Pul. 229. Exparte Rogers, 7 Cowan, 526. The act of Assembly authorised nine of the eleven commissioners to act. … After this decision, the board had nothing else to do; it was functus oficio.

Main v. Griffin.

141 N.C. 43 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 3, 1906

Brown, J. The jewelry was sold to defendant under the terms of a written contract, the execution of which was proven and the contract was introduced in evidence. … Enc. (2 Ed.), p. 199, and cases cited; Nichols v. Wyman, 71 Iowa, 160 ; Furneaux v. Esterly, 36 Kan., 539 .

State v. . King

20 N.C. 661 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1838

Grendley v. Barker , 1 Bos. Pul., 229; Ex parte Rogers , 7 Cowan, 526. The act of Assembly authorized nine of the eleven commissioners to act. … Cited: S. v. Allen , 24 N.C. 184 . (667)

Rice v. Rice

259 N.C. 171 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 27, 1963

Holden v. Holden, 245 N.C. 1 , 95 S.E. 2d 118 . … Cornelison v. Hammond, 225 N.C. 535 , 35 S.E. 2d 633 ; Plemmons v. Cutshall, 230 N.C. 595 , 55 S.E. 2d 74 ; Brown v. Hodges, 230 N.C. 746 , 55 S.E. 2d 498 ; Welborn v. Lumber Co., 238 N.C. 238 , 77 S.E. 2d 612 .

State v. O'KELLY

285 N.C. 368 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 15, 1974

State v. Brown, 282 N.C. 117 , 191 S.E. 2d 659 , (citing nine cases in support). See also Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 33 L.Ed. 2d 101 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 (1972). … In State v.

Lytton v. Marion Manufacturing Co.

157 N.C. 331 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 1911

*332 BROWN, J. Tbe plaintiff was a machinist in the employment of defendant, and alleges that he was injured while operating a machine lathe by some defect in the mandrel furnished him. … Cosselmon v. Dunfee, 172 N. Y., 509 ; Loughlin v. Brassil, 187 N. Y., 128, 135 ; Hordern v. Salvation Army, 124 App. Div., 674, 676 , 109 N. Y. Supp., 131 ; Haigh v. Edelmeyer and M. H. Elevator Co., 123 App.

Cronly v. . Murphy

64 N.C. 489 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1870

If he submits a material fact to the jury, as to which there is no evidence, it is erroneous; for when the law does not presume a fact, it must always be sustained by proof at the trial: Brown v. … Patton, 13 Ire. 446; Wells v. Clements, 3 Jon. 168. We have examined the record in this case with care, and concur' in the opinion of his Honor, that there was some evidence as to the question submitted, to the jury.

Walker v. Flemming

70 N.C. 483 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 15, 1874

Pending an action in the Superior Court, the purpose of which was to have it decided, whether the “Tate board” or the “ Howerton board ” were entitled to the office, Tate, who held the office as President de facto, assumes … among the creditoi'S of the Company, and assigns to the plaintiffs a valuable security belonging to the Company, as a collatez’al security for their debts, and this is done a very short time before the decision in Howerton v.

Dudley v. . Jeffress

178 N.C. 111 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 24, 1919

This case has been cited with approval since with full citation of authorities by Brown, J., in Allison v. Kenion, 163 N. C., 586 , and by Walker, J., in Lumber. Co. v. Lumber Co., 169 N. C., 89 . Also in Lee v. … Addington v. Jones, 52 N. C., 582; Safret v. Hartman, 50 N. C., 185 ; Williams v. Kivett, 82 N. C., 111 .”

Taylor Rogers v. Davis

212 N.C. 35 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 22, 1937

Rogers v. U. S., 185 U. S., 83 ; Wilson v. Comrs., 183 N. C., 638 ; Alexander v. Lowrance, 182 N. C., 642 ; Bramham v. Durham, 171 N. C., 196 ; S. v. Johnson, 170 N. C., 688 ; Cecil v. High Point, 165 N. … C., 431 ; School Comrs. v. Aldermen, 158 N. C., 197 .” Felmet v. Comrs., 186 N. C., 251 . See, also, Hammond v. Charlotte, 205 N. C., 469 , and Monteith v. Comrs. of Jackson, 195 N. C., 71 .

Walsh v. WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH BD. OF ALDERMAN

644 S.E.2d 224 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 2007

WALSH, Petitioner v. TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH BOARD OF ALDERMAN ACTING AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; Charles W. Smith, III and wife, Constance C. Smith, Respondents. No. 467A06. Supreme Court of North Carolina. … The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of our decision in State v. Hart, 361 N.C. ____ , 644 S.E.2d 201 , 2007 WL 1297237 (2007). REVERSED AND REMANDED.

State ex rel. Hodge v. Marietta & North Georgia Railroad

108 N.C. 24 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 15, 1891

In this Court, the County Board of Education of Wake asked to be substituted as relator, or as party plaintiff, under the provisions of The Code, §965. … Justices of Tyrrell v. Simmons, 3 Jones, 187 ; Grant v. Rogers, supra. The amendment cannot be allowed, because the law confers no right upon the County Board of Education of Wake to maintain the action.

Coxe v. Singleton.

139 N.C. 361 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 24, 1905

BROWN, J. 1. Tbe plaintiff excepted to tbe issues ■ submitted. They plainly cover tbe controversy between tbe parties as disclosed by tbe evidence. … State v. Bullard, 100 N. C., 488 ; State v. Boswell, 13 N. C., 209; Barton v. Morphes, ibid, 520.