Case law

In Re Jenkins v. .

157 N.C. 430 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 1911

Jenkins, and they also asked for special instructions based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to establish the will, all of which were refused, and caveators excepted and from the judgment against them appealed to this … strict compliance with them before there can be a valid execution and probate of a holograph script as a will; but this does not mean that the construction of the statute should be so rigid and binding as to defeat its clearly

State v. Nobles

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 2020

LaBuff, 658 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting the argument that this factor “could be established by demonstrating eligibility rather than actual receipt of benefits”). … We are of the view that a question as basic as jurisdiction is not an “independent, distinct, substantive matter of exemption, immunity or defense” and ought not to be regarded

State v. McGaha

306 N.C. 699 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1982

An applicant in Green could not qualify for insurance if “over fifty years,” that is, after his fiftieth birthday. … The present language of both sections was established by the 1981 amendment effective 1 July 1981. The new rape section replaces former N.C.G.S. 14-21 (Supp. 1975).

Alexander v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

158 N.C. 473 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 3, 1912

will clearly bring plaintiff’s cause within the principle of our decisions where substantial damages by reason of mental anguish have been allowed. … Y., supra, cited by defendant, recognizes the limitations on the general principle established in the former case. Will v. Telegraph Co., supra.

North Carolina Savings & Loan League v. North Carolina Credit Union Commission

302 N.C. 458 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 7, 1981

Only those factors common to the entire field of membership which, of themselves, tend to *469 promote financial stability qualify as common bonds. … For this reason, we cannot adopt petitioners’ argument that any factor which contributes to the success of a credit union qualifies as a common bond.

Snipes v. . Manufacturing Company

152 N.C. 41 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 25, 1910

R. , 132 N.C. 819 ; essentially qualifying, if it does not expressly overrule, this same case as it appears in 130 N.C. 344 . … It was held that the intestate was clearly guilty of contributory negligence, and that under the facts and attendant circumstances there was nothing to indicate to the engineer that the intestate was in a position of peril

State v. Lee

292 N.C. 617 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 10, 1977

Even so, where such relationship exists and is known and recognized by the juror, a defendant’s challenge for cause should be rejected only if it should appear clearly that, under the circumstances of the particular case, … Under the particular circumstances of this case, we do not believe that juror Norvell could qualify as a disinterested and impartial juror.

State v. Crocker

239 N.C. 446 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 24, 1954

It is well established that the plea of former jeopardy cannot prevail on account of an order of mistrial when such order is entered upon motion or with the consent of the defendant. S. v. Davis, 80 N.C. 384 ; S. v. … However, the fundamental rule remains and each departure from or exception to its application must be clearly and substantially marked out and grounded. S. v. Prince, supra; S. v. Alman, 64 N.C. 364 .

State v. Crowder

285 N.C. 42 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 13, 1974

The fifth assignment presents the question whether SBI Agent Sampson, who secured the wipings, was qualified to take them. … That is all Agent Sampson did, and he was qualified by training and experience to perform that simple task.

In Re Spivey

345 N.C. 404 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 10, 1997

It is well established, however, that a challenge to the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction may be made at any time, even on appeal to this Court. Askew v. … As we have often noted, it is “firmly established that our State Constitution is not a grant of power.

State v. Everette

361 N.C. 646 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 9, 2007

These are clearly admissions under Booker. See, e.g., United States v. … However, because the stipulation establishes a' basis for the aggravating factor at issue here, I conclude that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hobbs v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

206 N.C. 313 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 21, 1934

Associate Justice Walker, in an exhaustive opinion, clearly limited that decision to the peculiar facts of that case. … Under all the evidence of this case, it was clearly a matter for the jury to decide and the judgment of the court should be reversed.

Dickson v. . Dickson

70 N.C. 486 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1874

the plural number remains or the words of the will can be satisfied, yet is equally clear that where it is a naked power, given to executors, nominatim , it will be extinguished by the death, renunciation or refusal to qualify … But the purpose was to have the family establishment kept up; how long, he could not tell; or what was to come afterwards he could not foresee; and had not capacity to provide for; and therefore he left it to circumstances

Parker v. Fenwick.

138 N.C. 209 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 25, 1905

We note that the form of the second issue does not very clearly present to the jury the question of fact to be decided. … It assumes the very matter in controversy — ■ whether the defendant had established any counter-claim. The jury were left to infer that the only question for determination was the damage.

Rackley v. . Roberts

147 N.C. 201 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 25, 1908

Mary Glisson, the widow of Daniel Glisson, qualified as his administratrix with the will annexed, and on 2 November, 1881, instituted proceedings against the heirs and devisees of the testator for the sale of his lands for … was not intended to change the doctrine as to the rights of innocent purchasers at judicial sales or to impair those rights; but the case, when considered with reference to its own facts and the authorities cited, will clearly

State v. Curry

288 N.C. 660 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1975

His testimony as to the clothing and personal appearance of his assailants was clearly relevant and competent evidence. … For the purpose of establishing his alibi, the defendant Stevens called as his expert witness Lawrence A.

State v. Stanley

310 N.C. 353 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 1984

Defendant argues that having established her ability to so testify, there was no further justification for the leading questions then addressed to this witness. … It is well settled that a physician who is properly qualified as an expert may offer an opinion as to whether the victim in a rape prosecution has been penetrated and whether internal injuries have been caused thereby.

State v. Collington

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 25, 2020

Had defendant’s “appellate counsel . . . argued [in Collington I] that plain error was established pursuant to Pakulski, . . . … MOODY: –as well as an instruction on reasonable doubt and the effect of the immunity granted to Mr. Chambers. COURT: Yes, sir, I’ll do all that. What about you?

Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 2024

“[R]elative and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses ordinarily are -12-  PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. V. N.C. … To the extent that Aronov established a rule permitting deference to the Secretary in all circumstances, we disavow any such understanding.

State v. Mercer

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 2020

Sanders, 280 N.C. 81, 85, 185 S.E.2d 158, 161 (1971) (“When defendant relies upon some independent, distinct, substantive matter of exemption, immunity or defense, beyond the essentials of the legal definition of the offense … while the majority states that this affirmative defense is now available “in narrow and extraordinary circumstances,” in my view defendant here did not present evidence of circumstances at trial which were sufficient to qualify