Case law

Cottrell v. Town of Lenoir

173 N.C. 138 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 14, 1917

This principle underlies all ‘local option’ legislation and is fully recognized and established in this State.” citing Caldwell v. Justices, 57 N. C., 323. The same learned judge said in Evans v. Comrs., 89 N. … C., 602 .” .The act of 1917 is, therefore, clearly within the requirement of Constitution, Art.

Caldwell Land & Lumber Co. v. Smith

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

Tbe qualifying language' in this quotation presents tbe difficulty in this case. … ' We are clearly of the opinion that either the assessment is void and should be so declared, or that the plain *205 tiff should have an opportunity to contest all of the questions in the court which would have been open

McCormac v. Commissioners of Robeson

90 N.C. 441 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1884

That the board of commissioners of Robeson county shall submit to the qualified voters of Shoe Heel districts known as districts number one and two for white children in said county, on the first Thursday in April, 1883, … Now applying these principles to the case before us, we are clearly of opinion that the county commissioners exceeded their authority and the election held was void.

Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co.

305 N.C. 593 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 1982

Here the uncontradicted medical testimony establishes that plaintiff was physically capable of working in employment free from wood dust, paints and lacquer fumes and glue fumes. … The medical evidence clearly suggests that a work place free of wood-glue fumes, paint fumes and wood dust would not trigger claimant's symptoms. I do not find the case of Little v.

Commissioners of Wilkes County v. Call

44 L.R.A. 252 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 9, 1898

This proposition to subscribe $100,000 to the capital stock was submitted to the qualified voters of said county, by the commissioners thereof, the vote taken, a majority of the whole qualified voters of said county voted … This case, also, as I contend, established the authority to submit the question to the voters, and to issue these bonds.

State v. York

347 N.C. 79 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1997

A person can be granted immunity. ... No problem at all. But more importantly than that is, if they had any problem with that proposition, West was on the stand. … There was clearly a common plan or purpose among defendant and his codefendants to intentionally torture the victim.

Lawson v. Lawson

321 N.C. 274 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 2, 1987

Defendant, in signing the separation agreement in the presence of the notary, performed acts sufficient to qualify as an acknowledgment under the statute. … Radeker and not denied by defendant constitute a forecast of competent evidence which would establish acknowledgment as a matter of law.

State v. Ball

344 N.C. 290 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 6, 1996

Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was clearly sufficient to establish that the defendant attempted to rob Reverend and Mrs. Krantz with a deadly weapon. … Clearly, the early emotional traumas suffered by defendant and Dr.

State v. Morris

275 N.C. 50 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 21, 1969

Betts established the rule that the Sixth Amendment's guaranty of counsel for indigent defendants in the federal courts was not made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. … Hence, the constitutional immunity to illegal searches and seizures does not arise. 47 Am. Jur., Searches and Seizures, Sec. 20.

Manley v. GREENSBORO NEWS COMPANY

241 N.C. 455 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 4, 1955

Eussell brought the affidavit to the Greensboro News Company was not admitted in evidence against Eussell, because it was clearly incompetent as to him. … Both must concur to establish a cause of action. Aiken v. Sanderford, 236 N.C. 760 , 73 S.E. 2d 911 . “Plaintiff’s recovery is to be had, if at all, on the theory of the complaint and not otherwise.” Suggs v.

Town of Warrenton v. Warren County

215 N.C. 342 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 29, 1939

In section 623: “If such property is expressly exempted by the Constitution or a statute and there are no qualifying words used, the property is exempt regardless of its use.” See, also, section 638. In Springfield v. … The Constitution is a declaration of principles of government accepted and established by the people as supreme authority.

Truelove v. Parker

191 N.C. 430 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 24, 1926

On 26 July, 1912, the clerk of the Superior Court of Harnett County issued letters of adoption purporting to establish the relation of parent and child between John A. … And the failure to observe the statutory requirements as to notice and consent is not a mere irregularity which is immune from collateral attack, for they are jurisdictional and without them, as a general rule, a valid order

State v. Freeman

313 N.C. 539 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 4, 1985

Defendant contends that he was tried by a “death-qualified jury” and was thereby deprived of his constitutional rights to a jury drawn from a cross-section of the community, to equal protection of the law and to an impartial … He must demonstrate that “ ‘the evidence so clearly establishes the fact in issue that no reasonable inferences to the contrary can be drawn,’ and that the credibility of the evidence ‘is manifest as a matter of law.’ ” Id

Morpul, Inc. v. Mayo Knitting Mill, Inc.

265 N.C. 257 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 27, 1965

lowered during ordinary knitting to produce very elongated loops with the elastic strand laid in front of alternate loops and in back of others,” both the specifications in the patent and the evidence interpreting the patent establish … The auxiliary stitch cam • — • or some other, similar apparatus which must be inserted into a circular knitting machine — is clearly what differentiates the Surratt patent from the prior art.

Huddleston v. . Hardy

164 N.C. 210 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 3, 1913

When the facts- are admitted or established, it is one of law. … What tbe grantor said after tbe execution of tbe deed was clearly an afterthought.

Stein v. Asheville City Board of Education

360 N.C. 321 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 3, 2006

. § 122C-101 through -200, 3 that has waived sovereign immunity through the purchase of liability insurance. … Regardless of whether N.C.G.S. § 115C-245 qualifies as a public safety statute, plaintiffs’ claim for negligence per se is fatally defective.

City of Durham v. Southern Railway Co.

185 N.C. 240 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 4, 1923

The contention of the defendants is that the answer raised issues of fact because they qualified their admission of the truth of the averment in paragraph 4 as to the volume of the traffic over this grade crossing to the … This is clearly stated in Edgerton v. Kirby, 156 N. C., 347 , and also in Jackson v. Tel. Co., 139 N.

In Matter of Rogers

297 N.C. 48 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 20, 1979

Carlton recommended Rogers as a person fully qualified to practice law in North Carolina. The Honorable Samuel P. … It is also clearly established, however, that when an agency does make findings of fact an order based on them may be reversed by a reviewing court when they are not supported by the evidence. Underwood v.

Batten v. N.C. Department of Correction

326 N.C. 338 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 1, 1990

The right of permanent state employees subject to the State Personnel Act not to “be discharged, suspended, or reduced in pay or position, except for just cause,” is clearly stated among the provisions of that Act. … alleged discrimination on unlawful bases); N.C.G.S. § 126-36.2 (denial of promotion because of employer’s failure to post job vacancy or to give employee priority consideration); N.C.G.S. § 126-82(d) (employer failure to give qualified

State v. Atkins

349 N.C. 62 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 9, 1998

Silver, Wiggins, Merten and Brown all qualified as expert witnesses based upon the standard set forth in Rule 702. … The evidence in question was clearly related to defendant’s sentencing.