Case law

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.

Cockrell v. City of Raleigh

306 N.C. 479 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 3, 1982

Clearly the report fulfilled the requirements of G.S. § 160A-47(3). … Since the violation cannot be undone and sewers can never be provided according to the petitioners’ interpretation of City policy, to accept petitioners’ position would leave Brookhaven subdivision forever immune from annexation

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.

Westbrook v. Wilson.

135 N.C. 400 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 11, 1904

The only exception and assignment of error in tbe record is directed to the eighth special instruction given in response to the prayer of tbe caveators, to-wit: “The burden is upon tbe caveators to establish fraud or undue … Tbe criticism of this instruction is to the use of the word “influenced” in tbe concluding sentence, in tbe absence of any qualifying word.

North Carolina Department of Correction v. North Carolina Medical Board

363 N.C. 189 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 2009

functions; (3) providing professional expertise and medical advice to correctional staff participating in the execution; (4) notifying the *197 Warden or other correctional staff members of any perceived problems with the establishment … In creating those tasks in 1909, the legislature clearly intended that a physician attend and provide professional medical assessment, assistance and oversight in every judicial execution compelled by law upon inmates convicted

State v. . Baker

229 N.C. 73 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 19, 1948

The statutes clearly contemplate that osteopathic physicians shall diagnose and treat diseases by employing osteopathy. … It is to be remembered that this is not a case where it was incumbent on the State to establish a particular intent on the part of the accused as a necessary element of the crime.

State v. Jones

249 N.C. 134 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1958

Assignments 8 and 10, which we consider together, relate to the court’s action in overruling defendant’s general objections to questions asked two qualified medical experts. … Moreover, the State was required to offer evidence sufficient to establish this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hughes Ex Rel. Hughes v. Vestal

264 N.C. 500 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 2, 1965

Plaintiff’s objections were well taken; the chart is incompetent and its admission in evidence was clearly improper and prejudicial. In the first place, no foundation was laid for the introduction of the chart. … A matter is the proper subject of judicial notice only if it is “known,” well established and authoritatively settled.

Brown v. . R. R.

161 N.C. 575 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 26, 1913

Applying the principle, while the testimony of plaintiff, if accepted by the jury, clearly established an actionable wrong on the part of the conductor and employees, for which the defendant is responsible ( Stanley v. … Taylor , referring to a cross-examination of plaintiff's witness, and in which he had qualified his statement as made in chief: "True, the witness seems subsequently to have qualified his statement, but we are not at liberty

McNinch v. American Trust Co.

183 N.C. 33 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 22, 1922

Thus, the ground of equitable relief and immunity from the statute is the fraud, alleged to have'been perpetrated, and not the agreement to hold in trust. Floyd v. Duffy, 68 W. Va., 339 ; 33 L. R. A. (N. S.), 883. … The authorities cited and relied upon by both sides are clearly distinguishable by reason of the underlying differences of the two positions.

State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Carolina Utility Customers Ass'n, Inc.

336 N.C. 657 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 29, 1994

Glass testified that natural gas “means jobs, it means lower industrial costs, a better qualify [sic] of life for our citizens.” … The supplier refunds in the present case do not qualify as such a vested benefit.

State v. Starnes

308 N.C. 720 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1983

The child, Scooter Eramo, was examined on voir dire for the purpose of establishing her competency to testify. … Clearly, Dr. Wiegand could not have testified that the defendant raped Scooter Eramo and clearly he did not so testify. He did testify: “I feel that from the examination that her vaginal area was penetrated.”

State v. Emery

224 N.C. 581 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 8, 1944

Both the Constitution of the United States and of North Carolina begin with the words, “We the people . . . do . . . ordain and establish this Constitution.” … In some counties the names of qualified women are included in the jury lists.

Elmore v. . R. R.

189 N.C. 658 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 13, 1925

This rule is, however, confined to cases in which the public service or the administration of justice requires complete immunity — for example, words spoken in legislative bodies, in debates, etc., in reports of military … Carr , 178 N.C. p. 580 , it was said: "in cases of qualified privilege the falsehood of the charge will not of itself be sufficient to establish malice, for there is a presumption that the publication was made bona fide.

Wilson v. Markley.

133 N.C. 616 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1903

These authorities would seem to establish the law in this State that the Court has no power to examine the Journals and they are not competent to' be received in evidence to show the passage of an act or to contradict the … The law in consonance with this doctrine is strongly and clearly stated by Chief Justice Beasley in Pangborn v. Young, 32 N. J.

Brown v. Commissioners of Hertford

100 N.C. 92 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1888

Thus townships were established in every county invested with corporate powers. … The view thus insisted upon is, we think, clearly untenable.

Knowles v. Norfolk Southern Railroad

102 N.C. 59 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1889

These are two propositions, in no way dependent upon or qualifying each other, and not necessarily inconsistent, and *64 no matter what punctuation may be adopted, cau be construed only as distinct offers. … This is clearly susceptible of the interpretation, that the tender at last was unconditional, but the conductor impatiently declined it and ejected plaintiff.

State v. Taylor

332 N.C. 372 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 4, 1992

The statement was clearly hearsay as it was offered to prove that someone other than the defendant purchased a gun shop in South Carolina from Meetze. … The State clearly established a chain of custody for the bodies. Furthermore, any weak link in the chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Id.

State v. Atkinson

275 N.C. 288 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 14, 1969

The shovel taken by the officers from the defendant’s home, with his permission, immediately after the child’s body was removed from the place where the defendant had admitted he buried it, was clearly competent for admission … The State of North Carolina has afforded him a fair trial in accordance with its established procedures applicable to all such cases.

State v. Brown

314 N.C. 588 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1985

With respect to defendant’s good character, we cannot say that this “evidence so clearly establishes the fact in issue that no reasonable inferences ... to the contrary can be drawn.” Id. In this case, as in State v. … Defendant’s evidence does not establish the fact of his good character or reputation in his community so clearly as to compel a finding of this mitigating circumstance. III.