Case law

State v. . Steadman

200 N.C. 768 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 13, 1931

S. v. Melton, 187 N. C., 481 . In Bank v. Rochamara, 193 N. … S., 564; McCall v. Lumber Co., 196 N. C., at p. 602; Moss v. Brown, 199 N. C., at p. 192.

Pullen v. . Green

75 N.C. 215 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1876

White v. Brown, 2 Jones, 403 ; Winstead v. Reid, Busb., 76. … Lane v. Phillips, 6 Jones, 455 . But by the contract the plaintiff is entitled to recover only $14.06, as is found by the jury.

Quince v. . Nixon

51 N.C. 289 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1859

Peterson, who was administratrix of her former husband, Brown, had completed the administration in respect to Katy, the mother of the slave in controversy: so, that at her death, there was nothing left to be administered. … Ilaywood, and he falls back on the ¡position that the action can be maintained in the plaintiff’s own right on the authority of Cotton v. Davis, 3 Jones’ Rep. 355.

State v. Reid

364 N.C. 602 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 2010

704 S.E.2d 280 (2010) STATE v. Bobby Joe REID, Jr. No. 280P09-6. Supreme Court of North Carolina. November 4, 2010. Bobby Joe Reid, Jr., pro se. Lisa Y. Harper, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C. … The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of October 2010 by Defendant for Appeal to the Supreme Court of En Banc Writ of Mandamus Against Prison and State Prison FCC and DCC Board Hearings: "Motion

Bromhal v. Stott

342 N.C. 418 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1995

465 S.E.2d 536 (1995) 342 N.C. 418 Laura Leigh Boone (Stott) BROMHAL v. E. Gregory STOTT. No. 520A94. Supreme Court of North Carolina. December 7, 1995. Jack P. Gulley, Kenyann G. Brown, John M. Kirby, Raleigh, for E.

Lewis v. Clyde Steamship Co.

132 N.C. 904 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 10, 1903

In S. v. … The plaintiff further said: "My first orders came from the Boston Board of Underwriters and owners. I forwarded bill to the Boston Board.

Cobb v. . Rasberry

116 N.C. 137 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1895

Williams v. Lanier, 44 N. C., 30 . … In Houston v. Brown, 52 N. C., 163 , this Court said, in referring to that Act: “The sole object was to provide a home for her (the wife) of which she could not be deprived by the husband or the creditors.”

Lipinsky v. . Revell

167 N.C. 508 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1914

Knight v. Taylor, 131 N. C., 84 . … Berry v. Henderson, 102 N. C., 528 ; Farthing v. Shields, 106 N. C., 296 .

Forbes v. City of Rocky Mount

165 N.C. 14 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 18, 1914

BrowN, J. The plaintiff sues the defendant for damage for a personal injury received by coming in contact with an electric light wire of the defendant’s municipal plant, hanging down over the street. … Cheek v. Lumber Co., supra. New trial.

RANLO SUPPLY COMPANY v. Clark

247 N.C. 762 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1958

Brown v. Ward, 221 N.C. 344 , 20 S.E. 2d 324 . … Boykin v. Logan, 203 N.C. 196 , 165 S.E. 680 ; Honeycutt v. Kenilworth Development *765 Co., 199 N.C. 373 , 154 S.E. 628 ; Foundry Co. v. Aluminum Co., 172 N.C. 704 , 90 S.E. 923 ; Weathers v.

Evans v. Alridge.

133 N.C. 378 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 17, 1903

This case was cited and approved in Bernhardt v. Brown, 122 N. C., at p. 594; 65 Am. St. Rep., 725 , which case cites as holding the same doctrine Sa wyers v. Sawyers, 93 N. C., bottom of p. 321; Spicer v. … C., 378 ; Coates v. Wilkes, 94 N. C., at p. 181 ; Holman v. Miller, 103 N. C., 118 . Lytle v. Lytle and Spicer v. Gambill are cited as authorities in Heyer v. Rivenbark, 128 N. C., 272 .

Lumber Co. v. . Smith

146 N.C. 199 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 27, 1907

Kyle v. Comrs. , 75 N.C. 445 ; R. R. v. Comrs. , 82 N.C. 259 ; Wilmington v. Cronly , 122 N.C. 388 . … Cited: Kinston v. Loftin , 149 N.C. 256 ; Land Co. v. Smith , 151 N.C. 72 ; Sherrod v. Dawson , 154 N.C. 528 ; Guano Co. v. New Bern , 172 N.C. 260 . * Page 150

Osborne v. Town of Canton

219 N.C. 139 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 26, 1941

Howerton v. Tate, 68 N. C., 546 ; Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer (Ill.), 36 N. E., 983 ; Booker v. Donohoe (Va.), 28 S. E., 584 . In Howerton v. … In Kreitz v.

State v. . Williams

97 N.C. 414 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1887

This view is sustained by the State v. McNeely, 92 N. C., 829 . … The Judges of the Superior Court may, in the exercise of their discretion, fix the time of imprisonment, and authorize the board of county commissioners to farm out the convict, as provided in §3448 of The Code, or employ

State v. Thorpe

326 N.C. 451 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 5, 1990

State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 569 , 313 S.E.2d 585, 589 (1984) (quoting State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 12-13 , 187 S.E.2d 706, 714 (1972)). See also State v. … Brown, 310 N.C. 563 , 313 S.E.2d 585 (defendant had key and was seen repeatedly at apartment where contraband was found). See State v. Baize, 71 N.C.

Barbee v. Edwards

238 N.C. 215 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 23, 1953

Crook v. Warren, 212 N.C. 93 , 192 S.E. 684 ; Saleeby v. Brown, 190 N.C. 138 , 129 S.E. 424 ; Stevens v. Turlington, 186 N.C. 191 , 119 S.E. 210 , 32 A.L.R. 870 ; Walker v. … Maddox v. Brown, 233 N.C. 519 , 64 S.E.2d 864 .

Barnes v. Hotel O.Henry Corp.

229 N.C. 730 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 7, 1949

Parker v. Tea Co., supra. … Brown v. Davenport Holding Co., 134 Neb. 455 , 279 N. W. 161 , 118 A. L. R. 423; Ilgenfritz v. Missouri Power & Light Co., 340 Mo. 648 , 101 S. W. (2) 723; McCann v. Gordon, 315 Pa. 367 , 172 A. 644 ; Smith v.

State v. Niccum

293 N.C. 276 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 11, 1977

See State v. Anderson, 281 N.C. 261 , 188 S.E. 2d 336 (1972). In June 1972 the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Furman v. … See United States v. Howard, 449 F. 2d 1086 (C.A.D.C. 1971); People v. Reyes, 60 Cal. *286 App. 3d 227, 131 Cal. Rptr. 340 (1976); United States v. Stokes, 365 A. 2d 615 (D.C. App. 1976).

Mintz v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

233 N.C. 607 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 23, 1951

Delaney, 122 Iowa 583 , 98 N.W. 373 , in which it is said: “Plaintiff, like every other person, is expected to pay for his own board and keeping, and that obligation is not removed by his injury through the negligence of … It may well happen that, by reason of his injured and dependent condition, his expense for board is materially increased, and in such case, doubtless, the enhanced cost may be recovered.” In Graeber v.

Turner v. Hammocks Beach Corp.

363 N.C. 555 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 28, 2009

Davis v. Davis, 360 N.C. 518, 524 , 631 S.E.2d 114, 119 (2006). … Cooper v. Ridgeway Brands Mfg., LLC, 362 N.C. 431, 442 , 666 S.E.2d 107, 114 (2008) (citing Stein v. Asheville City Bd. of Educ., 360 N.C. 321, 325 , 626 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2006)).