Case law

Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. Johnston County Board of Adjustment

132 N.C. App. 465 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 2, 1999

.”); See also, CG & T Corp. v. Board of Adjustment, 105 N.C. App. 32 , 411 S.E.2d 655 (1992). … Burton v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 49 N.C. App. 439, 442 , 271 S.E.2d 550, 552 (1980), cert. denied, 302 N.C. 217 , 276 S.E.2d 914 (1981) (citing Humble Oil & Refining Co. v.

Richardson v. State

367 N.C. 779 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 2014

Peyton v. . Shoe Co.

167 N.C. 279 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 18, 1914

Caton v. Toler , 160 N.C. 104 ; Shaw v. Telegraph Co. , 151 N.C. 638 . … In Keson v.

Majebe v. North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners

106 N.C. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 1992

“Board”) and defendants Thornburg, Morgan and Kaiser. … Gaston Board of Realtors, Inc. v. Harrison, 311 N.C. 230 , 316 S.E.2d 59 (1984).

O'Kelly v. Brown

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 9, 2022

Brown, identified as a Prison Emergency Response Team (P.E.R.T.) Sergeant; John Doe Defendants #1 and #2, identified as P.E.R.T. … See Thornburgh v. Abbot, 490 U.S. 401, 408 (1989); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974).

Brown v. Saul

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 15, 2023

Id.; see also Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 861 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015)); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4)). … Finally, Claimant analogizes his case to Cole v.

Norman v. Brown

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 1, 2022

) vs. ) ) WAYNE BROWN … Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994).

Katherine Inez Hall v. Wake County Board of Elections

280 N.C. 600 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 15, 1972

Martin v. Martin, 253 N.C. 704 , 118 S.E. 2d 29 (1960); Sheffield v. Walker, 231 N.C. 556 , 58 S.E. 2d 356 (1950) ; Reynolds v. Cotton Mills, 177 N.C. 412 , 99 S.E. 240 (1919); Wheeler v. … Reynolds v. Cotton Mills, supra; Hannon v. Grizzard, supra; 25 Am. Jur. 2d Domicile § 87 (1966).

Heery v. Town of Highlands Zoning Board of Adjustment

61 N.C. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 1983

An order of a board of adjustment which exceeds its authority under the zoning ordinance may be appealed by nearby landowners who will sustain special damage from the proposed use. Jackson v. … Taylor v. City of Raleigh, 290 N.C. 608 , 227 S.E. 2d 576 (1976).

Brown v. Thomas

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 28, 2022

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore, a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). … Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008).

Brown v. O'Malley

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 2023

Alessandra v. Colvin, No. 12-cv-397A, 2013 WL 4046295, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. … Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989).

Brown v. North Carolina Joint Stock Land Bank of Durham

213 N.C. 594 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 25, 1938

Overman v. Sasser, 107 N. C., 432 , 12 S. E., 64 ; Belvin v. Paper Co., 123 N. C., 138 , 31 S. E., 655 ; Pritchard v. Steamboat Co., 169 N. C., 457 , 86 S. E., 171 ; Springs v. Refining Co., 205 N. C., 444 , 171 S. … Foote v. Gooch, supra. In S. v. Martin, 141 N. C., 832 , 53 S.

JWL Investments, Inc. v. Guilford County Board of Adjustment

133 N.C. App. 426 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 1, 1999

Concrete Co. v. Board of Commissioners, 299 N.C. 620, 626 , 265 S.E.2d 379, 383 , rehearing denied, 300 N.C. 562 , 270 S.E.2d 106 (1980); Ball v. Randolph Co. Bd. of Adjust., 129 N.C. … Serv. v. Seaboard Chemical Corp., 114 N.C. App. 1, 11-12 , 441 S.E.2d 177, 183 , disc. review denied, 336 N.C. 604 , 447 S.E.2d 390 (1994) (quoting Finch v.

Forrest v. Pitt County Board of Education

328 N.C. 327 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 7, 1991

401 S.E.2d 366 (1991) 328 N.C. 327 Addie FORREST, Employee, Plaintiff, v. PITT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Employer, Self-Insured, (State Board of Education), Defendants. No. 472A90. Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Board of Commissioners v. Assell, Goetz & Moerlein, Inc.

194 N.C. 412 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 26, 1927

Tate v. Comrs., 122 N. C., 812 ; Smathers v. Comrs., 125 N. C., at p. 488; Henderson v. Wilmington, 191 N. C., 269 . In R. R. v. Cherokee County, 177 N. … Construction Co. v. Brockenborough, 187 N. C., 65 ; Holton v. Mocksville, 189 N. C., 144 ; Storm v. Wrightsville Beach, supra.

Faison v. New Hanover County Board of Education

75 N.C. App. 334 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 1985

Utilities Commission v. Public Staff, 309 N.C. 195, 210 , 306 S.E. 2d 435, 443-444 (1983). The language of the statute is ambiguous, therefore, we must look further to determine the intent of the legislature. … The board shall give him written notice of that decision by June 1 of his third year of employment as a supervisor or principal.

Brown v. Thomas

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 2022

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 5:22-cv-00028-MR DASHAWN TYREK BROWN … P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”); Link v. Wabash R.R.

Allen v. Brown

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 9, 2022

) ORDER ATTORNEY SCOTT BROWN, et al., Defendants. … Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Norman v. Brown

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 28, 2022

See Stump v. … Therefore, Defendant Brown’s refusal to charge the Plaintiff’s alleged attacker did not implicate any of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., Brown v. Rowan Cnty. Det.

Board of Commissioners v. Assell, Goetz & Moerlin, Inc.

195 N.C. 719 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 6, 1928

The Court’s decision is set forth in Comrs. v. Assell, 194 N. C., p. 412. … V, sec. 6, and the County Finance Act. The special approval has been given by the general act.” This was the sole question before the Court presented by the appeal.