Case law

Noah v. . R. R. Reynolds v. . R. R.

229 N.C. 176 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 4, 1948

The objection to this instruction is, that it omits the essential elements of concurring negligence, as pointed out in Brown v. Montgomery Ward , 217 N.C. 368 , 8 S.E.2d 199 , and Wright v. … Tyson v. Ford , 228 N.C. 778 , 47 S.E.2d 251 . It is enough if it contribute to the injury as a proximate cause, or one of them. Godwin v. R. R. , 220 N.C. 281 , 17 S.E.2d 137 .

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 .”

Allison v. . Comrs. of Buncombe

210 N.C. 467 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 23, 1936

That the plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the county of Buncombe and of the State of North Carolina, and that the individual defendants constitute the Board of County Commissioners of Buncombe County, and as such are … See Valley Farms Co. v. Westchester County , 261 U.S. 155 , 67 L.Ed., 585 .

Hooper v. . Hooper

165 N.C. 605 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 20, 1914

Perkins v. Perkins , 88 N.C. 41 ; Hansley v. Hansley , 32 N.C. 506 . True, in the case of Broom v. … Broom v. Broom , 130 N.C. 562 ; S. v. Gee , 92 N.C. pp. 756-762 ; S. v. Ballard , 79 N.C. 627 .

Wingo v. . Hooper

98 N.C. 482 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1887

In Roulhac v. Brown, 87 N. … Counsel for the defendant relied upon Claflin & Co. v. Underwood, 75 N. C., 485 .

State v. Freeman

307 N.C. 357 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 11, 1983

Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 604 , 45 L.Ed. 2d 416, 427 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2262 (1975). “Indeed, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, the Fourth Amendment issue would not have to be reached.” Dunaway v. … Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603 , *365 45 L.Ed. 2d 416, 427 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 (1975).

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.

Roberts v. Pratt

152 N.C. 731 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 27, 1910

Moody v. Johnston, 112 N. C., 798 -801; Brown v. Pratt, 56 N. C., 202 . … See, also, McIntosh v. Commissioners, 13 Kan., 171 ; Thompson v. Council, 31 Oregon, 231; Browning v. Roane, 9 Ark., 354; Bounse v. Barker, 1 Greene, 263 .

State v. Rankin

363 N.C. 136 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 2009

674 S.E.2d 143 (2009) STATE of North Carolina v. John Fitzgerald RANKIN. No. 367P08. Supreme Court of North Carolina. February 5, 2009. James R. Parish, Fayetteville, for Rankin. Christopher G. … Browning, Jr., Solicitor General, William D. Kenerly, District Attorney, for State of NC. Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 663 S.E.2d 438 .

Starbuck v. Town of Havelock

252 N.C. 176 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 16, 1960

Sanitary District v. Lenoir, 249 N.C. 96 , 105 S.E. 2d 411 ; Saluda v. Polk County, 207 N.C. 180 , 176 S.E. 298 ; Starmount Co. v. Hamilton Lakes, 205 N.C. 514 , 171 S.E. 909 . … Constantian v. Anson County, 244 N.C. 221 , 93 S.E. 2d 163 ; Banks v. Raleigh, 220 N.C. 35 , 16 S.E. 2d 413 ; Bank v. Lacy, 188 N.C. 25 , 123 S.E. 475 ; Commissioners v. Boring, 175 N.C. 105 , 95 S.E. 43 ; Smith v.

Hyatt v. . McCoy

194 N.C. 760 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 21, 1927

Benton v. R. R. , 122 N.C. 1008 ; Burn v. R. R. , 125 N.C. 304 ; Gray v. Little , 127 N.C. 304 ; Phillips v. Telegraph Co. , 130 N.C. 513 ; Abernethy v. Yount , 138 N.C. 337 ; Boney v. R. R. , 145 N.C. 248 ; Billings v. … Many of the authorities sustaining this position have been collected and cited in the note to Tunnel Co. v. Cooper , 39 L.R.A. (N.S.), 1064. See, also, Harvey v. R. R. , 153 N.C. 567 . In Brown v.

State v. Bovender

233 N.C. 683 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 7, 1951

Riley King was not permitted to testify how long defendants’ witness Brown had been living in their home and how long he had known her husband, but later Brown testified without objection he had been living there since December … Brown v. Vestal, 231 N.C. 56 , 55 S.E. 2d 791 ; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Banking Co., 191 N.C. 500 , 132 S.E. 468 ; S. v. Hardy, 189 N.C. 799 , 128 S.E. 152 .

Plant Food Co. v. City of Charlotte

214 N.C. 518 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 30, 1938

concerned are of that' character, they cannot be delegated, suspended, or embarrassed by contract, which would have a binding force upon succeeding boards. … Removal of dead animals: Louisville v. Wible, 84 Ky., 290 , 1 S. W., 605 . See McBean v. Fresno, 112 Cal., 159 , 44 P., 358 ; California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works, 199 U. S., 306 .

Fields v. Tompkins-Johnston Plumbing Co.

224 N.C. 841 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 3, 1945

Lockey v. Cohen, Goldman Co., 213 N. 0., 356, 196 S. E., 342 ; Miskowiak v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 156 Md., 690 ,- 145 Atl., 199 ; Kripplaben v. Iron <& Steel Co., 227 Mo. App., 161 , 50 S. W. (2d), 752 ; 25 Cornell L. … Brown v. Aluminum Co., ante, 766; Hegler v. Cannon Mills, ante, 669. Where the record supports the fact-finding body, its determinations are not subject to review by the Superior Court or this Court. Kearns v.

Clinton v. . Ross

226 N.C. 682 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1946

Shortly thereafter a new board took office and the board, as newly constituted, enacted an amendment thereto which postponed the effective date thereof until 1 December, 1945. … The new board took this action for the reason that the ordinance precluded the operation of two of the three proposed warehouses and tended to destroy competition.

State v. Holland

318 N.C. 602 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 18, 1986

State v. … State v. Gonzalez, 311 N.C. 80 , 316 S.E. 2d 229 (1984); State v.

Feimster v. . Johnson

64 N.C. 259 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1870

Naylor v. Collins, 1 Taunt. 19; Pervy v. Brown, 2 Stark. 403; Wood v. Hewitt, 55 E. C. L. 913.

Thomas v. Catawba College

248 N.C. 616 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 30, 1958

Thomas (plaintiff’s husband) v. Catawba College, ante, 609. … Plaintiff’s employment was terminated by the Board of Trustees as of February 23, 1952.

Bryson v. Railroad

141 N.C. 594 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 25, 1906

Brown, J. The summons was duly returned to Jackson Superior Court, convening on May 22, 1905. … Wilcox v. Ins. Co., 60 Fed. Rep., 929; Schipper v. Cordage Co., 12 Fed. Rep., 803.

Watkins v. . James

50 N.C. 105 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1857

Brown v. Ray, 10 Ire. Rep. 72, is decisive of that question. “ To make a consideration, it is not necessary that the person making the promise, should receive, or expect to receive, any benefit.