Case law

Fourth National Bank v. Wilson

168 N.C. 557 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 7, 1915

.;' and in the absence of such qualifying testimony the law will presume that such person signed his name as comaker, and in any event as surety, that being the relationship of the defendant alleged in the complaint.” … As we have seen, tbe verdict on tbe fourth issue has become immaterial, since tbe jury, in response to tbe fifth issue, has established notice sufficient to fix and bold defendant as indorser; and there is nothing to show

Snuggs v. STANLY CTY. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH

303 S.E.2d 646 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1983

It is well established that State courts have concurrent general subject matter jurisdiction to hear Section 1983 claims. In Martinez v. … Presnell , a remarkably analogous case, clearly holds to the long-established North Carolina rule that "where the legislature has provided by statute an effective administrative remedy, that remedy is exclusive and its relief

Jawa v. Fayetteville State University

426 F. Supp. 218 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 21, 1976

Hargrave that he was well qualified to write grant proposals. Dr. Hargrave then asked plaintiff if he would chair a committee to write a grant proposal for the Department. … These incidents clearly reflect unprofessional conduct and a continuing pattern of noncooperation on the part of plaintiff. On September 21, 1973, Dr.

Sechrist v. Board of Commissioners

181 N.C. 511 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 7, 1921

At an election held in High Point Township on 18 January, 1921, a majority of the qualified voters of said township voted in favor of the issuance of said bonds and the levying of said taxes, as provided in said chapter 9 … The Legislature has attempted to do something which is clearly forbidden by the Constitution, and which, therefore, is beyond its authority.

Cook v. Town of Davidson

534 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 30, 1982

Mayor MacCormac further moves individually for summary judgment, alleging that she has qualified immunity from suits against her for actions performed as part of her official duties as mayor. *810 The plaintiff has filed … Moreover, even if the notice to the Commission was made public, there is clearly no “stigmatizing” statement in the report.

Streeter v. Harris

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 12, 2024

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must examine (1) whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that the officer violated a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly

Froneberger v. Yadkin County Schools

630 F. Supp. 291 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 13, 1986

time plaintiff applied, he was suffering from a mental disability rendering it impossible for plaintiff to establish he was qualified for the teaching position. … Thus, plaintiff by his own pleadings has established that he was not qualified for the position for which he applied with Yadkin. Therefore, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

North Carolina National Bank v. Barbee

260 N.C. 106 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 19, 1963

In the vast majority of jurisdictions the rule is that merely qualifying as executor or administrator c.t.a. is not sufficient standing alone, to constitute an election to take under the will but is a factor tending to establish … In holding that W was not put to an election, the Court said: “To raise the legal necessity of election, the intent of the donor must clearly appear from the will under recognized rules of construction. . . .

Stern v. . Lee

115 N.C. 426 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1894

homestead privileges and immunities therein. … Graham , 110 N.C. 374 , the Justice who delivered the opinion, combatting the rule established by Adrian v.

State v. Bunton

27 N.C. App. 704 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1975

Subsection (d) of G.S. 20-139.1 provides that a person who has been given a breathalyzer test “may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his own choosing administer … Moreover, Section 1 of the statute, which creates a new offense, is clearly prospective only.

WHITE v. THE CITY OF GREENSBORO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2019

entitled to qualified immunity. … The “clearly established” prong of a qualified immunity analysis considers the “‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established

Kindler v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.

204 N.C. 198 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 22, 1933

The endorsement of the plaintiff was neither special nor restrictive nor qualified, nor conditional. … The principle is clearly set forth in Moffitt v. Maness, 102 N. C., 457 , and has often been restated. Another principle is equally familiar.

Gordon v. North Carolina Department of Correction

173 N.C. App. 22 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 2005

Braniff Airways, Inc., 664 F.2d 1282, 1284 (5th Cir. 1982) (prima facie case established if: “(1) a claimant is a member of a minority group, (2) he was qualified for the position, (3) he was discharged, and (4) the employer … Ability to express ideas clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing. Ability to think clearly and act quickly and effectively during emergencies.

Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Harrelson

112 N.C. App. 98 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 21, 1993

DOT claims it is “clearly the intent of the JCA and the OACA to keep outdoor advertisers from claiming such junkyards as activities for qualifying unzoned areas as commercial or industrial when [DOT] is in the process of … Naegele stresses that its permit applications must be viewed at the time they were submitted, when the junkyard was clearly visible from the road.

State Ex Rel. Markham v. Simpson

175 N.C. 135 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 20, 1918

Sawyer and he appeared and qualified as mayor. … Section 64 establishes his salary, and in section 65 he is to fill the position of city manager and receive his salary in case of a vacancy of that office or a failure of the incumbent to perform his duties.

Jones v. Norfolk Southern Railroad

176 N.C. 260 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 23, 1918

"While the law in question clearly recognizes assumption of risk as a defense in certain instances, under section 4 such a position is absolutely inhibited in cases where the violation of a Federal statute, enacted for the … averring contributory negligence by plaintiff were in no sense qualifying or explanatory of tbe fact admitted,, and were therefore properly excluded.

Brown v. Costen

176 N.C. 63 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 18, 1918

And a qualified voter at such primary is said to be one who is a qualified voter of the State or who will become one on or before the next general election, and who has “declared and had recorded on the registration book … elections and tbe State board of elections shall be allowed access to tbe ballot boxes in such precincts to make a recount and declare tbe results, which shall be done under such rules as tbe State board of elections shall establish

Etheridge v. United States

218 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 1, 1963

As has been noted, the language of the deed must clearly manifest the intention of the parties to convey otherwise. … But these rights are granted only when the defendant is in the process of establishing a lifesaving station on the conveyed property. This is clearly expressed.

Dennis v. Torres

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2024

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must examine (1) whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that the officer violated a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly

Doe v. The University of North Carolina System

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 4, 2024

The burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity “rests with the defendant.” Id. at 305. … A claim should only be dismissed at the 12(b) stage based on qualified immunity if the Court is “unable to say that [Plaintiff] cannot build a factual record to demonstrate that his clearly established . . . rights were