Case law

Perry v. . Comrs.

183 N.C. 388 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 26, 1922

In case a majority of the qualified voters at the election shall vote against the tax, the district shall not be enlarged." … Several propositions, it will be seen, were embodied in this election; but it appears that they were all clearly understood and fully comprehended by the voters throughout the entire township.

Williams v. . Bailey

178 N.C. 630 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 3, 1919

In reference to this, clause in the will, it was admitted or clearly established that the 242-acre tract referred to as contained in the deed of H. B. … It is so certain there is nothing to be explained or qualified.” Nor is the position in any way affected by the exception appearing in the devise of the portion of the land sold to John Allen.

State v. Caddell

287 N.C. 266 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 6, 1975

Swink, supra, after stating the test as above quoted, Justice Ervin said, “The trial judge charged the jury, in substance, that to establish the prisoner’s plea of insanity it must be ‘clearly established’ that he did ‘not … The court said that it was error to charge that a plea of insanity must be “clearly established” but said nothing about the remainder of the charge. We find no merit in this assignment of error.

State ex rel. Freeman v. Ponder

234 N.C. 294 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 31, 1951

Besides, all the evidence before the court at the time the motion was made tended to establish the election of Ponder. … This testimony was clearly incompetent under the specific rule of law which declares that a writing is the best evidence of its own contents. S. v. Ray, 209 N.C. 772 , 184 S.E. 836 ; Harris v.

County of Mecklenburg v. Sterchi Bros. Stores, Inc.

210 N.C. 79 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 29, 1936

When the manner of doing business establishes this situs, the intangibles are taxable, and this does not contravene Art. … XIV, sec. 1, of. the Federal Constitution (in part), as follows: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person

Doe on Dem. of Rouche v. WilLiamson

25 N.C. 141 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1842

But these inferences, however logically they may appear to follow from the principles clearly established, seem to come into conflict with certain positions expressly laid down in books of undoubted authority. … Nothing can shew this more clearly than Page’s case, 5 Co. Rep. 52.

Grocery Company v. Bag Company.

142 N.C. 174 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 2, 1906

The very nature of the case, as shown by the fact of non-residence, made it clearly futile to attempt to serve him personally. … words of any one section, but all those relating to the same subject must be taken and considered together in order to ascertain the meaning and scope of any one of them, and each must be restricted in its application or qualified

North Carolina Department of Correction v. Gibson

308 N.C. 131 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 5, 1983

It may be established in various ways. … Burdine clearly states the rationale of this holding.

NC NAACP v. Moore

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2022

Clearly, the distinction between constitutional amendments and ordinary statutes was not invented by the trial court in this case; it was established by the people themselves as inscribed in the North Carolina … ¶ 114 Proposing amendments to our state constitution is a power clearly granted to the General Assembly.

Empire Power Co. v. N. C. Department of Environment

337 N.C. 569 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 9, 1994

Language was added which clearly, unambiguous *582 ly, and in accordance with our interpretation in Vass , declares the purpose and applicability of the statute: “This Chapter establishes a uniform system of administrative … a procedure whereby matters of regulation and control are first addressed by commissions or agencies particularly qualified for the purpose).

Stewart v. McDade

256 N.C. 630 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 11, 1962

The execution of the release having been established by the verdict, its force and effect was a question of law for the court. … Stewart at any time, and any right that she may have to qualify as executrix of the Estate of J. A.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

326 N.C. 771 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 13, 1990

Slater was clearly a person using Sawyer’s truck which was clearly a covered auto within the meaning of the coverage portion of Sawyer’s liability policy. … Although Slater answered in the negative when asked if he believed he was entitled to operate the truck, he qualified his answer by giving as a reason the fact that he was driving without a license.

Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va.

367 N.C. 81 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 28, 2013

In addition, the interest rate for which plaintiffs qualified was the interest rate they received; no further rate reduction is noted on the Form 1008 or elsewhere; the “qualifying rate” stated is the rate they ultimately … Despite this testimony and defendant’s claims that the two terms are “often related loan terms,” HUD has clearly defined the two terms as having very different meanings. U.S.

State v. Taylor

354 N.C. 28 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 17, 2001

Ed. 2d 424 (1977), clearly established that law enforcement officers cannot initiate interrogation of a defendant without counsel present after the right to counsel has attached. … Irwin was clearly qualified to give his opinion as to the possible cultural affects living in a drug-infested environment would have had on defendant, he was not qualified to give what is in essence a medical opinion as to

State v. Riggs

328 N.C. 213 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1991

Such evidence established that informant’s reliability. … In the affidavit forming part of the application for the search warrant, Deputy Floyd specifically qualified his statement that the informant was reliable as being based upon the fact that the information the informant had

State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Insurance v. North Carolina Rate Bureau

300 N.C. 381 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 15, 1980

Supreme Court in Chenery provided qualifying guidelines in stating the quoted general rules. … These and other decisions establish clearly that it has never been the law in this jurisdiction that income from invested capital is to be considered in an insurance ratemaking case. B.

Cooper v. Railroad

140 N.C. 209 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 1905

As a general rule the omission of the traveler to look and listen is so clearly a want of ordinary care that it constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law, but it cannot be said that such failure will always defeat … Again it is contended that the burden was on the defendant to establish contributory negligence; that there was no evidence tending to show contributory negligence sufficient for the consideration of a jury, and for this

Gardiner v. . May

172 N.C. 192 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 11, 1916

May, the defendant, qualified as administrator of Walter Gardiner. When the will was produced the said J. J. … May qualified as administrator with the will annexed, and allotted to the widow of the testator a year's support.

Pegg v. Gray

240 N.C. 548 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 9, 1954

In recognition that the law of trespass as fixed by the principles of the common law affords no immunity to fox hunting as a sport, it has become the established custom in England for the master of the hunt to raise funds … But the evidence clearly shewed that in the case of foxhunting, as ordinarily pursued, the object of destroying the animal is only collateral. The interest and excitement of the chase is the main object.

State v. Gilliam

317 N.C. 293 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1986

They argue that the prosecutor excused qualified blacks from the venire solely on account of their race and thereby violated the defendants’ rights to due process of law and equal protection of the law under the fourteenth … “The trial judge’s decision to allow improper argument will not be reversed unless the impropriety of the remarks is extreme and is clearly calculated to prejudice the jury.