Case law

Ellison v. Aldermen of Raleigh

89 N.C. 125 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1883

King v. Lynn, Douglas, 85. … The doubt intimated is resolved in the subsequent case of Brown v. Turner, 70 N.

Brown v. United States of America

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 12, 2019

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:19-CV-154-FL WEYLON SCOTT BROWN … Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983).

Story Homes Constr., LLC v. N.C. Licensing Bd. for Gen. Contractors

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 17, 2025

” or “Board”). … App. 698, 700, 456 S.E.2d 878, 879 (1995) (citing In re Brown, 56 N.C. App. 629, 630, 289 S.E.2d 626, 626-27 (1982)).

Durham City Bd. of Educ. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh

109 N.C. App. 152 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 2, 1993

Brown v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 326 N.C. 387, 392 , 390 S.E.2d 150, 153 (1990) (citations omitted). … “In Fidelity & Casualty v.

Baker v. N.C. Psychology Bd.

827 S.E.2d 102 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 9, 2019

In Re Applications for Reassignment Boyd

247 N.C. 413 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 10, 1958

This policy of separation for educational purposes had been accepted as constitutional since the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 , 41 L.Ed. 256 . The decision in the Segregation Cases (Brown v. … Gibson v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, 246 F. 2d 913 ; School Board of City of Newport News, Va. v. Atkins, 246 F. 2d 325 ; School Board of Charlottesville, Va. v.

Hardy v. MASTERBRAND CABINETS, INC.

191 N.C. App. 250 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 1, 2008

Foster v. Carolina Marble and Tile Co., 132 N.C. App. 505, 507 , 513 S.E.2d 75, 77 (1999). … Brown, who is board certified in internal medicine. Dr. Brown diagnosed plaintiff with BOOP secondary to lipoid pneumonia. Dr.

Barrier v. Randolph

260 N.C. 741 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 19, 1963

Lackey v. Board of Education, 258 N.C. 460, 462 , 128 S.E. 2d 806 , amid cases cited; Rouse v. Strickland, 260 N.C. 491, 495 , 133 S.E. 2d 151 , and cases cited. Tire sufficiency of the Randolph. … Board of Education, supra, this Court, -in- -opinion by Denny, C.J., while recognizing and -restating (the rule -applied in Ox-endine v. Lewis, supra, held it did not apply to- the -deed then under -consideration.

Coucoulas/Knight Properties, LLC v. Town of Hillsborough

199 N.C. App. 455 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 1, 2009

. *229 Brown & Bunch, PLLC, by LeAnn Nease Brown, Chapel Hill, for plaintiff-appellee. The Brough Law Firm, by Robert E. Hornik, Jr., Chapel Hill, for defendants-appellants. BRYANT, Judge. … In determining whether a Board decision is arbitrary and capricious, "the reviewing court must apply the `whole record' test." Sun Suites Holdings, LLC, v.

HOKE COUNTY v. State

601 S.E.2d 199 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 30, 2004

Johnson v. . Wagner

219 N.C. 235 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1941

Brown , 29 Ill. 201 , as follows: "From very necessity a power must exist somewhere in the community to grant relief in such cases of absolute necessity, and under our system of jurisprudence, that power is vested in the … the powers conferred upon said board as herein defined.

Penland v. Town of Bryson City

199 N.C. 140 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1930

"We cite below certain decisions of this Court in regard to material and immaterial changes: In Brown v. Commissioners, 173 N. … Glenn v. Wray, 126 N. C., 730 ; Brown v. Stewart, 134 N. C., 357 .” In Claywell v. Commissioners, 173 N.

In Re Magee

87 N.C. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1987

See Rule 28, North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure; Brown v. Neal, 283 N.C. 604 , 197 S.E. 2d 505 (1973); Lloyd v. Carnation Co., 47 N.C. App. 203 , 266 S.E. 2d 722 (1980). … See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 25 L.Ed. 2d 287 (1970); Harrell. Further, a professional license is a protected property interest. See, e.g., Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 , 61 L.Ed. 2d 365 (1979); Beauchamp v.

Board of School Directors of Forsyth Co. v. Commissioners of Forsyth Co.

127 N.C. 263 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 27, 1900

These facts are admitted, or not denied, by the defendants, and upon this state of facts his Honor made the following order: “It is ordered and adjudged that ■defendant Board of Commissioners of Forsyth County be restrained … The only case called to -our attention as authority in this case, was Board of Education of Bladen County v. Commissioners of Bladen, 113 N.C., 379 .

Moody v. State Prison.

53 L.R.A. 855 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 12, 1901

County Board v. State Board , 106 N.C. 81 . The statute incorporating the defendant (Laws 1899, ch. 24), does not contain the authority "to sue and be sued." … Lorillard v. Monroe , 11 N. Y., 392 ; Brown v. People , 75 N.Y. 441 .

Burgin v. . Smith

151 N.C. 561 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1909

Harris v. Wright , 121, N.C. 171; McCormac v. Comrs. , 90 N.C. 441 ; Tate v. Comrs. , 122 N.C. 812 . In Jones v. … In Broadnax v. Groom , 64 N.C. 244 ; Cromartie v. Comrs. , 87 N.C. 134 ; Ward v.

Amerson v. Willis

109 N.C. App. 297 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 2, 1993

In Reliable Trucking Co. v. … See Ponder v. Budweiser of Asheville, Inc., 30 N.C.

Taylor v. Askew

17 N.C. App. 620 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 28, 1973

Brown v. Glass, 229 N.C. 657 , 50 S.E. 2d 912 ; Warlick v. Bowman, 104 N.C. 403 , 10 S.E. 474 . … This latter statute in turn provides in part that “[t]he district shall be deemed to have acquired title for the purpose of easements or rights-of-way to those areas of land identified in the final report of the board of

Booher v. Frue

321 N.C. 590 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1988

Cameron v. Cameron

235 N.C. 82 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1952

Seawell v. Purvis, 232 N.C. 194 , 59 S.E. 2d *85 572; Taylor v. Schaub, 225 N.C. 134 , 33 S.E. 2d 658 ; Moore v. Moore, 224 N.C. 552 , 31 S.E. 2d 690 ; Brown v. Polk, 201 N.C. 375 , 160 S.E. 357 ; Bank v. … It is well settled that in an action for divorce, either absolute or from bed and board, it is permissible for the defendant to set up a cause of action for divorce, either absolute or from bed and board, as a counterclaim