Case law

Taylor v. City of Raleigh

290 N.C. 608 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 1, 1976

On this record we would be unwilling to hold that plaintiffs have established that they are persons aggrieved by the rezoning ordinance. See 3 R. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 21.10 (1968). … Clearly this constitutes no reasonable excuse for plaintiffs’ failure to assert their right, if any, to challenge the rezoning ordinance.

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

Thaxton v. Insurance Co.

143 N.C. 33 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 13, 1906

The very terms of his further answer to the question, after he had said positively that he had died by his own hand or act, shows clearly that he did not intend to speak of his own knowledge, but was only making a guess as … S., 284 ), and the other statements in the proofs are merely some evidence, if evidence at all, to qualify or contradict this admission; but at last it is for the jury to weigh and decide upon. Ins. Co. v.

ERWIN MILLS v. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO

234 N.C. 321 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 31, 1951

This power shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement, law, or otherwise . . .” 29 USOA, section 160 (a). 4. … Furthermore, this Court has long insisted that an ‘intention of Congress to exclude States from exerting their police power must be clearly manifested,’ ” citing numerous authorities.

State v. . Davis

229 N.C. 386 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1948

This language was retained in the Revised Statutes of 1836, but in the Revised Code of 1854 the qualifying clause was modified to provide "that the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against … Evidence is the means whereby the truth of a matter may be established, and its production should not be barred unless clearly prohibited by statute, or in the interest of a well-defined public policy.

Powell v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

347 N.C. 614 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 1998

The employee has priority consideration for other positions, as vacancies arise, for which he or she is qualified. N.C.G.S. § 126-5(e)(l); see also N.C. Dep’t of Correction v. … Decisions made by the Director of the HBP could structure a major goal of the DOT and could establish a policy platform to guide programmatic efforts within the entire DOT.

State v. Robinson

355 N.C. 320 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2002

Clearly, the trial court sought to supervise the use of the trial court’s and prospective jurors’ time by preventing repetition. … The law governing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss is well established.

Watson v. White

309 N.C. 498 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1983

The remarks are clearly improper, calculated to appeal to the sympathy of the jury. … Pleadings of the second class, while not defining issues in the case being litigated, nevertheless reflect something *510 which a party has once said . . . and qualify as evidential admissions.

Thomas v. Thomas

258 N.C. 590 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1963

It follows that, under the law established by applicable decisions, defendant is not the owner of the property in controversy. … The New York statute contains a qualifying phrase.

Cottrell v. . Lenoir

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

City of Raleigh , 57 N.C. 370 , and the Legislature's power to pass such a statute was clearly demonstrated by Chief Justice Pearson in an exhaustive opinion, and it was said that Thompson v. … The act of 1917 is, therefore, clearly within the requirement of Constitution, Art.

Meroney v. Atlanta Building & Loan Ass'n

116 N.C. 882 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1895

The by-law in relation to the establishment of local branches is as follows : £In accordance with the authority conferred in its charter this Association will establish local branches in Georgia and other States at such points … The defendant asserts immunity from the restrictions and burdens imposed by law on all others, and at the same time asks the best security given by law and the use of the process of the courts to enforce it.

State v. Smith

320 N.C. 404 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 28, 1987

Both a murder and a felonious assault were clearly committed, and the evidence supports a finding that defendant committed them. … This Court has noted that “[t]he practice of ‘death qualifying’ the jury in a capital case has recently been held to violate neither the United States Constitution, Lockhart v.

Root v. Allstate Insurance Company

272 N.C. 580 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1968

Lessee contends that the language of the lease clearly and without ambiguity conveys all of -the spacé *584 in the building located at 747 Hillsboro Street, Raleigh, N. … C.,” *585 nor the description “comprising 1772 square feet” identifies or makes clearly specific the property demised.

Artis v. . Artis

228 N.C. 754 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1948

Artis and Mark Artis heirs and assigns," clearly and unqualifiedly convey, and relate to a conveyance of, a fee simple estate. … Carroll, supra , the Court said: "In considering the contention that the plaintiff acquired a defeasible fee, we must keep in mind two clearly established principles: (1) A fee may be limited after a fee by way of executory

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Ingram

290 N.C. 457 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 14, 1976

Quite clearly, a company which has been carrying on a business of insuring against liability for property damage only would be thrown, by the Act in question, into a type of business utterly foreign to its undertaking and … The record shows, with disturbing clarity, that this has been the experience in the past of companies voluntarily writing such insurance, even though those companies are possessed of qualified employees having the expertise

State v. Franks

300 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 6, 1980

Establishing that defendant had a mental disease or defect at the time of the commission of the crime is thus a relevant link in defendant’s chain of evidence, see, State v. … He is not qualified to give his opinion based on personal knowledge when, by definition, he has none.)

S. v. . Wilkerson

164 N.C. 432 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1913

Having clearly before us the nature of the particular charge against the defendant, the law alleged to have been violated and the proof offered in support of the charge, we are prepared now to consider the objection urged … It is no more than sufficient evidence to establish the vital facts without other proof, if it satisfies the jury.

State v. Hearst

356 N.C. 132 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 16, 2002

program should not qualify for credit under N.C.G.S. § 15-196.1. *138 We thus turn our analysis to whether defendant’s time in IMPACT constitutes confinement under N.C.G.S. § 15-196.1. … In 1993, the General Assembly established a one hundred eighty bed facility in Morganton, North Carolina, now known as “IMPACT West.”

State v. Wilkerson

164 N.C. 431 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1913

Having clearly before us tbe nature of tbe particular charge against tbe defendant, tbe law alleged to have been violated and tbe proof offered in support of tbe charge, we are prepared now to consider tbe objection urged … If tbe court bad stopped here, and not qualified this instruction, it would have been correct; but it did not do so, but went beyond tbe terms of tbe statute and the law when it further charged that it then was tbe duty of

Hardin v. American Mutual Fire Insurance Company

261 N.C. 67 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 17, 1964

Tins policy provided for the payment of damages in an amount equal to or in excess of the 'amount specified in the North Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act and qualified under the provisions of … The endorsement on the motor vehicle liability policy issued by defendant to plaintiff clearly defines an “uninsured automobile” as follows: “The term ‘uninsured automobile’ means: “(1) with respect to damages for bodily