Case law

Meachan v. Montgomery County Board of Education

47 N.C. App. 271 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 1980

Blades v. City of Raleigh, 280 N.C. 531 , 187 S.E. 2d 35 (1972). … Pitts v. Pizza, Inc., 296 N.C. 81 , 249 S.E. 2d 375 (1978).

Vernon, Vernon, Wooten, Brown & Andrews, P. A. v. Miller

73 N.C. App. 295 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1985

Vassey v. Burch, 301 N.C. 68 , 269 S.E. 2d 137 (1980); Kidd v. Early, 289 N.C. 343 , 222 S.E. 2d 392 (1976). The trial judge does not sit as a fact finder. Billings v. Harris Co., 27 N.C. … Kidd v. Early, supra. Facts asserted by the party answering a summary judgment motion must be accepted as true. Railway Co. v. Werner Industries, 286 N.C. 89 , 209 S.E. 2d 734 (1974).

Board of Drainage Commissioners v. Dixon

158 N.C. App. 509 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2003

V. … See Goins v. Puleo, 350 N.C. 277 , 512 S.E.2d 748 (1999). In SEC v.

Board of Education v. . Commissioners of Johnston

198 N.C. 430 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1930

Wikel v. Commissioners, 120 N. C., 451 ; Harrison v. Bryan, 148 N. C., 315 ; Pickler v. Board of Education, 149 N. C., 221 ; Wallace v. Wilkesboro, 151 N. C., 614 ; Moore v. Monument Co., 166 N. C., 211 ; Kilpatrick v. … C., 668 ; Glenn v. Culbreth, 197 N. C., 675 . We do not mean to say that there was error in tbe judgment. In objecting to tbe budget tbe defendant proposed reductions amounting to $25,275.62.

Jordan v. Civil Service Board of Charlotte

137 N.C. App. 575 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 18, 2000

‘to examine all competent evidence (the “whole record”) in order to determine whether the agency decision is supported by “substantial evidence.” ’ ” Act-Up Triangle v. … Whiteco Outdoor Adver. v. Johnston County Bd. of Adjust., 132 N.C. App. 465, 468 , 513 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1999). In the case at bar, Jordan concedes the Board’s findings of fact are correct.

Dailey v. Board of Dental Examiners

308 N.C. 386 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 3, 1983

Cox v. Real Estate Licensing Board

301 N.C. 87 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 16, 1980

Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen

285 N.C. 374 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 8, 1974

Power Co. v. Board of Adjustment

285 N.C. 235 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 2, 1974

Ayers v. Board of Adjustment for Robersonville

113 N.C. App. 528 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1994

Concrete Co. v. Board of Commissioner, 299 N.C. 620 , 265 S.E.2d 379 , reh’g denied, 300 N.C. 562 , 270 S.E.2d 106 (1980). … for that of the board.

Sweatt v. Rutherford County Board of Education

237 N.C. 653 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 6, 1953

entire salary being paid by the State Board of Education. … Davis v. Veneer Corp., 200 N.C. 263 , 156 S.E. 859 ; Bryan v. T. A. Loving Co., 222 N.C. 724 , 24 S.E. 2d 751 ; Brown v. Aluminum Co., 224 N.C. 766 , 32 S.E. 2d 320 ; Vause v.

Brokers, Inc. v. Board of Education

293 N.C. 159 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 14, 1977

Grant v. County Board of Education

178 N.C. 329 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 22, 1919

On these, the pertinent facts of the controversy, the question chiefly presented was fully considered by us in Webb v. … Kinnicut v. Joint School Committee , 165 Wis. 654 ; U.S. Trust Co. v. Inc. Town of Guthrie , 181 Iowa 992 ; City of San Antonio v. Rollins Sons (Tex.), 127 S.W. 1166 .

Board of Drainage Commissioners v. Wilkinson

193 N.C. 830 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 23, 1927

Board of Education v. Comrs., 183 N. C., p. 302; Construction Co. v. Brockenbrough, 187 N. C., p. 77; Storm v. Wrightsville Beach, 189 N. C., at p. 683. We can find no prejudicial or reversible error.

Matthews v. Board of Corp. Com'rs

106 F. 7 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · Feb 5, 1901

Smyth v. Ames, supra; Turnpike Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578 , 17 Sup. Ct. 198, 41 L. Ed. 560 ; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418 , 10 Sup. Ct. 462, 33 L. Ed. 970 ; Railway Co. v. … To fix such rates and compensation-is the duty and within the jurisdiction of the board. To fix rates not reasonable, or compensation not just, is a plain violation of duty.

Board of Education v. Town of Greenville

132 N.C. 4 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 24, 1903

Wharton v. Commissioners, 82 N. C., 11 . … Lanning v. Commissioners, 106 N. C., 505 .

Meacham v. Montgomery County Board of Education

59 N.C. App. 381 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 16, 1982

In Meacham v. Board of Education, 47 N.C. … In Yancey v. Watkins, 2 *386 N.C.

Glenn v. Board of County Commissioners

201 N.C. 233 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1931

R. v. Lenoir County, 200 N. C., 494 ; R. R. v. Cherokee County, 195 N. C., 756 ; R. R. v. Forbes, 188 N. C., 151 ; R. R. v. McArtan, 185 N. C., 201 ; Parvin v. Commissioners, 177 N. C., 508 ; Pritchard v. … C., 449 ), or “for the purpose of taking up a note in bank made by the predecessor board and other current expenses” (R. R. v. Cherokee County, 177 N.

Garlock v. Wake County Board of Education

211 N.C. App. 200 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 19, 2011

[White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777 , 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985)]. Dockside Discotheque, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of Town of Southern Pines, 115 N.C. … See Publishing Co. v. Board of Education, 29 N.C.

Sharpley v. State Board of Elections

23 N.C. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1974

Hall v. Board of Elections, 280 N.C. 600 , 187 S.E. 2d 52 (1972). … On this appeal no question is raised as to the fairness or intent of the State Board of Elections, and in his brief plaintiff concedes that the Board acted in good faith.