Case law

Pedrick v. . R. R.

143 N.C. 486 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 22, 1906

This Court is always reluctant to stay the progress of such enterprises, and will only do so in a case clearly calling for its intervention." … They receive no license or immunity by the refusal of this Court to interfere with them on this application." There is another view of the case pressed upon our attention.

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

314 N.C. 171 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 13, 1985

The evidence clearly tends to show that Duke’s North Carolina retail ratepayers benefited in several ways from the Catawba Sale Agreements. … a random selection of establishments not served from the Company’s distribution lines; or establishments previously served on this Schedule.

Havens v. Bank of Tarboro

132 N.C. 214 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 24, 1903

As the principle governing in such cases is so clearly and forcibly stated in the case of McNeill v. Bank, 46 N. Y., 325 ; 7 Am. … exercised are not expressed on the face of the instrument, but remain in confidence between the owner and the depositary, the case cannot be distinguished in principle from that of an agent who receives secret instructions qualifying

State v. Locklear

322 N.C. 349 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 2, 1988

The record establishes that retained counsel had been in the case for at least three and one-half months when the motions were heard. … The evidence set forth above, viewed — as required — in the light most favorable to the State, clearly constituted substantial evidence that defendant committed the offense charged.

Henderson v. . Hoke

21 N.C. 119 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1835

Had not Coulter made a deed to the defendant, and would not make one to a second purchaser, qualified to demand it, by having a deed from the sheriff, who was his immediate vendor, it seems to us, that the purchaser would … But if there be two witnesses, or only one, and he sustained by incidental circumstances, clearly established, which leave no fair doubt in the Judge’s mind, that the witness has, in fact, told the truth, then there is evidence

State v. Spangler

314 N.C. 374 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1985

Defendant acknowledges the rule in this State, which places the burden of proof on the defendant to establish the affirmative defense of insanity. State v. … Garrison, 742 F. 2d *381 2d 129 (4th Cir. 1984) which reject the argument that “death qualified” juries are “guilt prone.”

Cullen v. Logan Developers, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 23, 2024

As plaintiff acknowledges, the Court of Appeals has opined that a Building Code violation without more does not qualify as gross negligence. Bashford v. N.C. … Defendant did not clearly communicate its actions to plaintiff, who believed that the scuttle hole was entirely gone.

State v. Jones

305 N.C. 520 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 1982

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 of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor … That court concluded that “a community’s desire to enhance the scenic beauty of its neighborhoods by keeping junkyards concealed from view is clearly a legitimate feature of the public welfare.”

In re Annexation Ordinance Adopted by the City of Albemarle

300 N.C. 337 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 3, 1980

Nu-Woods, Inc., 299 N.C. 723 , 264 S.E. 2d 99 (1980) (legislature clearly expressed its intent in G.S. 97-29 to amend G.S. 97-38). … The urban area that a city seeks to qualify for annexation under one of the urban purposes tests set forth in G.S. 160A-48(c)(l) - (3) must be considered as a whole; i.e., as one area and may not be divided into sub-areas

State v. . Higgs

48 L.R.A. 446 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 27, 1900

Ascertain the location, increase, reduce and establish the width and grade, regulate the repairs and keep clear the streets, sidewalks and alleys of the city; extend, lay out, open, establish the width and grade, keep clean … Such obstructions clearly fall within their power, and it is their duty to exercise it in a proper manner.

Town of Midland v. Harrell

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 20, 2023

When viewed in context, the Town insists, the pertinent MDO provisions clearly did not require Town Council approval before the zoning administrator referred the matter of defendants’ nonpayment of civil penalties to the … The act of referring nonpayment of civil penalties to the Town’s attorney for the institution of a civil action certainly qualifies as an attempt to enforce Article 23 and -16-

Trust Co. v. . Benbow

135 N.C. 303 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 3, 1904

Even if that fact were established, there is no evidence that the letters were correctly transcribed or that they were ever seen by King after they were written. … Indeed, its general as well as most useful purpose is to bring out the statements and circumstances attending and qualifying the evidence in chief, the force of which is in this way frequently destroyed without attacking

State v. Johnson

317 N.C. 343 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 12, 1986

Defendant first contends that death qualification is unconstitutional, arguing that a death-qualified jury is more conviction prone than a non-death-qualified jury and therefore its use deprived him of his rights under the … Defendant has failed, however, to establish either of the remaining elements.

Huff v. Thornton

287 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1975

Consequently, each was qualified to testify as an expert witness concerning these matters. State v. Vestal, 278 N.C. 561, 594 , 180 S.E. 2d 755 ; Paris v. … All of this testimony was clearly relevant to the question of the nature and extent of the injury done to the house. It was so limited by the judge in his charge to the jury.

Long v. Watts

183 N.C. 99 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 8, 1922

The plaintiff in this action is now and has been for a number of years the duly elected, qualified, and acting judge of the Superior Court for the Fifteenth Judicial District of North Carolina. … Tbe Constitution clearly and plainly provides otherwise.

State v. Hamer

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 11, 2021

Poindexter, 353 N.C. 440, 444, this Court held that a defendant’s conviction that rested upon “a guilty verdict by a jury composed of less than twelve qualified jurors” which resulted from the misconduct … at 186 (holding that “[i]t was prejudicial error for the trial court to proceed to trial without conducting the statutory inquiry in order to clearly establish whether the defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently

Hoke v. . Henderson

15 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1833

Nor ought it to be, nor is it ever exercised, unless upon such deliberation, the repugnance between the legislative and constitutional enactments be clear to the court, and susceptible of being clearly understood by all. … as the' clerks, and clerks and mas- *11 tors of tbo courts before established. — Under this law the defendant was in April 1807 appointed.

State v. Wilson

262 N.C. 419 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 10, 1964

The court below found no facts and established no basis for a determination that defendant’s prima facie case had been overcome. … But he has the right to be indicted and tried by juries from which persons of his race have not been systematically excluded — juries selected from all qualified persons regardless of race. Miller v.

State v. Stepney

280 N.C. 306 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 28, 1972

Continuances should not be granted unless the reasons therefor are fully established. Hence, a motion for continuance should be supported by an affidavit showing sufficient grounds. State v. … whose testimony tends to identify the defendant as the person who committed the crime charged in the indictment, and the defendant interposes timely objection and requests a voir dire or asks for an opportunity *314 to ‘qualify

State v. Felton

330 N.C. 619 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 27, 1992

. § 15A-1064, any such error is clearly harmless as the record here reveals ample factual support for the mistrial order. See State v. White, 85 N.C. … This was sufficient evidence of Jernigan’s ability to communicate with defendant to establish her as a competent witness capable of understanding and recounting his communications to her.