Case law

State v. Yoes

271 N.C. 616 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1967

Consequently, a judgment rendered by such court is void and, upon appeal, must be vacated irrespective of the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the trial court to establish the guilt of the accused. … These facts clearly distinguish the present case from Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 , 87 S. Ct. 643 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 599 .

State v. . Henry Swink

19 N.C. 9 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1836

declaration left unfinished by reason of *13 an interruption could be received as testimony without the explanations which were intended to accompany it; and that the admonition of the magistrate in this case indicates clearly … But adjudged cases have been produced which are supposed to establish, that however in general the admission of a fact may be inferred *16 from the silence of a party when such fact is asserted in his presence, and that therefore

Paschal v. . Johnson

183 N.C. 130 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 8, 1922

Trustees of the consolidated district were duly appointed and qualified. … where the districts have already voted the same tax rate, the consolidation making no increase of the prevailing tax and authorizing none except where the voters impose it upon themselves, such a statute is, in our opinion, clearly

Whitehead v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad

87 N.C. 255 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1882

What those circumstances are, thus relied upon by the defendant, is clearly established by the findings of the judge in the court below, and (discarding all immaterial matters) may be stated to be : 1. … This, to my mind, is to allow the defendant to take advantage of its own wrong, and to establish for itself an immunity by its own persistent violation of duty.

Belshe v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.

186 N.C. 246 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 17, 1923

Defendant’s motion for nonsuit, on tbe ground tbat no rule of tbe company required tbe train on tbe yard at tbe time to put out or establish protection as against an inferior train, and, .therefore, no breach of duty is shown … The expression, “the present value of his diminished earning capacity forever in the future,” clearly did not mean for all time to come, nor to indicate that the injury was permanent or otherwise, but rnerély that the present

Fort v. . Allen

110 N.C. 183 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1892

C., 510 ), and it is clearly unnecessary to the validity of the conveyance that it should be made in consideration of her support and maintenance. This being so, it must follow that D. F. … It is well established that a grantee who accepts a deed poll is bound by its terms or qualifications. Maynard v. Moore, 76 N. C., 158 ; Long v. Swindell, 77 N. C., 176 . The principle is well stated in Hutchinson v.

Goode v. Barton

238 N.C. 492 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1953

By the law of New Jersey Young was immune from liability for Balbino's negligence. … If what the Court said in the first paragraph was not applicable to the facts, it did state the doctrine of sudden emergency in the second and third paragraphs clearly and fully as set forth in our decisions.

Sims ex rel. Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance

257 N.C. 32 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 2, 1962

In that state a statute is constitutional only to the extent that its purpose is clearly expressed in the title. … Plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to establish her right to double indemnity, but she ought not to be deprived of the right to establish that fact if she can.

State v. McQueen

295 N.C. 96 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 6, 1978

We need not consider whether the immunity from prosecution granted to this witness had more to do with refreshing her recollection than did the hypnosis. … It was part of the res gestae and established the setting in which the other events at the Norris house, narrated by Barbara Kiser, occurred.

Pullen v. . Corporation Commission

152 N.C. 548 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 11, 1910

This being a claim for exemption from taxation, it can only be allowed in case the claim is clearly established. R. R. v. Allsbrook, 110 N. C., 137 ; R. R. v. Missouri, 120 U. S., 569 ; R. R. v. Supervisors, 93 U. … Missouri, supra, it was held: “Immunity from taxation will not be recognized unless granted in terms too plain to be mistaken.”

Roane v. . Robinson

189 N.C. 628 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 6, 1925

The rule is clearly stated in Carroll v. … law that where an estate is given to a person generally or indefinitely with a power of disposition, or to him, his heirs and assigns forever, it carries a fee, and any limitation over or qualifying expression of less import

Commissioners of Bladen County v. Boring

175 N.C. 105 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 21, 1918

should adopt the construction which is in accord with the organic law; but the principle does not justify a •departure from the plain and natural significance of the words employed which the meaning and purpose of the law clearly … While the construction of public roads is a necessary expense, as has been so often decided, we held in the Lacy case that the establishment of a road system confined to a township or road district, and under its control

McCall v. Webb.

135 N.C. 356 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 11, 1904

The General Assembly by an act passed at its session of 1895 established the "Criminal Circuit Court of the counties of Buncombe, Madison, Haywood and Henderson," and the plaintiff was duly elected and qualified as solicitor … The defendant was appointed and qualified as solicitor for the (357) County of Buncombe and was installed in office.

Lee v. Southern Railroad

180 N.C. 413 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 24, 1920

Tbe duty to look and listen may be qualified by obstructions and other circumstances, and when these appear the question of contributory negligence is ordinarily for tbe jury. … These principles are established by Cooper v. R. R., 140 N. C., 209 ; Inman v. R. R., 149 N. C., 123 ; Farris v. R. R., 151 N. C., 483 ; Fann v. R. R., 155 N. C., 136 ; Johnson v. R. R., 163 N. C., 431 ; Penninger v. R.

Carter v. . R. R.

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. … R. , 108 N.C. 24 , but we think that case can be clearly distinguished from the one at bar.

Robinson v. Security Life & Annuity Co.

163 N.C. 415 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 29, 1913

Conceding this much, and treating everything as true which the evidence reasonably tends to prove, which is the established rule in passing upon judgments of nonsuit, it appears that the defendant issued its policy to the … Tbis principle is clearly recognized in several recent decisions in our Court, and notably in Herring v. Lumber Co., 159 N. C., 382 , wbicb in its essential features is almost identical with tbe one before us.

State v. Ray

274 N.C. 556 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 11, 1968

The burden is upon the defendant to establish the racial discrimination alleged in his motion to quash the indictment. S. v. Lowery and S. v. Mallory, 263 N.C. 536 , 139 S.E. 2d 870 ; S. v. Wilson, supra; S. v. … The record clearly shows that Mrs. Henderson •did give her consent to the search on both occasions, and it is :also clear that she actively aided the officers in looking through, the bedroom.

State v. . Moore

166 N.C. 284 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 1, 1914

The rule, with its qualifications, is stated accurately and clearly in 22 Cyc., 344: “It is. necessary to negative an exception or proviso contained in a statute defining an offense where it forms a portion of the description … C., 701 , Justice Hoke says: “It well established that when a statute creates a substantive criminal offense, the description of the same being complete and definite, and by subsequent clause, either in the same or some other

State v. . Mitchell

202 N.C. 439 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 30, 1932

It consists of three commissioners elected by the qualified voters of the State. Its regular sessions are held in the city of Ealeigh and it is open at all times for the transaction of business. … With respect to the question presented the common-law doctrine was clearly defined.

Wilhelm v. . Burleyson

106 N.C. 381 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1890

It was clearly incompetent to admit testimony tending to show where the creek ran in the year 1845, when Andrew Carriker owned the land on both sides and it was not a boundary. Jones v. Johnston, 18 Howard, 150 . … riparian owner may erect bulwarks to protect his property from injury by the stream, yet he can only do so when, by the exercise of reasonable care, it can be done without injury to others.” *389 There was error in adding the qualifying