Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersNC

10,000+ results

5.79s

  • L.P. v. Wake County Board of Education

    District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 15, 2021

    Batch’s office forward the message to Lindsay Mahaffey, a member of the Wake County Public School System (“WCPSS”) Board of Education (“Board”). … . §§ 1401(9), (26), (29); see Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 203 (1982). The Supreme Court in Fry v.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • State v. Hall

    114 N.C. 909 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 15, 1894

    Rorer’s Interstate Law, 308 ; Story’s Conflict Laws, 620-623 ; The Antelope, 10 Wheaton, 66 -123; State v. Knight, Taylor’s Rep., *912 65; State y. Brown, 1 Haywood, 100; State v. Cutshall, 110 N. … I say the offence, was committed on board of the schooner; for, although the gun was fired from the ship Rose, the shot took effect and the death happened on board of the schooner,and the act was, in contemplation of law,

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Johnson v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Board of Education

    District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 21, 2019

    Virginia Dep’t of State Police v. Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004). … Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools Board of Education; (OAH File Number: 18-EDC-05304). SO ORDERED.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Sandhill Amusements, Inc. v. Sheriff of Onslow County

    236 N.C. App. 340 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 5, 2014

    In Veazey v. … White v. Carver, 175 N.C.

    Reversed by Sandhill Amusements, Inc. v. Miller, 368 N.C. 91 (2015)Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Gilliam v. Bertie County Board of Education

    District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2021

    Washington v. □□□□□□ - 233 N.C. App. 412, 420, 761 S.E.2d 650, 655-656 (2014). Despite the Board’s contention that Ms. Gilliam failed to properly serve the Board, any defect in Ms. … Brown v. Goodwill Indus. of E. N. Carolina, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 3d 558, 562 (E.D.N.C. 2019). For Ms.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Department of Transportation v. Humphries

    347 N.C. 649 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 1998

    Plaintiff cites Browning v. Highway Commission, [ 263 N.C. 130 , 139 S.E.2d 227 ]; Kaperonis v. Highway Commission, [ 260 N.C. 587 , 133 S.E.2d 464 ]; Yancey v. Highway Commission, 222 N.C. 106 , 22 S.E.2d 256 [(1942)]. … Defendants cite, inter alia, Williams v. Board of Education, 266 N.C. 761 , 147 S.E.2d 381 [(1966)]; Best v. Utley, 189 N.C. 356 , 127 S.E. 337 [(1925)]; Collins v. Davis, 132 N.C. 106 , 43 S.E. 579 [(1903)].

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • STEVENS v. CABARRUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

    District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 22, 2021

    v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). … Brown v. Runyon, 139 F.3d 888 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing Nealon v. Stone, 958 F.2d 584 (4th Cir. 1992)); see also Jones v. Calvert Grp., Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 302 (4th Cir. 2009).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Lambeth v. City of Thomasville

    179 N.C. 452 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1920

    Brown, J. Tbe power of the defendant to enter into the contract sued upon does not seem to be denied, at least it is not raised by any assignment of error or discussed in the defendant’s brief. … Wyatt v. R. R., 156 N. C., 307 ; Whitfield v. Lumber Co., 152 N. C., 211 ; Davenport v. R. R., 148 N. C., 287 ; Wade v. Tel. Co., 147 N. C., 219 ; Wilkinson v. Dunbar, 149 N. C., 20 ; R. R. v. Church, 104 N. C., 525 .

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Coastal Ready-Mix Concrete Co, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of Town of Nags Head

    270 S.E.2d 106 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 15, 1980

    270 S.E.2d 106 (1980) COASTAL READY-MIX CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the TOWN OF NAGS HEAD et al. Supreme Court of North Carolina. July 15, 1980.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Bank v. . Commissioners

    116 N.C. 340 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1895

    Currie v. Canady , 78 N.C. 91 ; Hayes v. Davidson , 70 N.C. 573 ; Mitchell v. Sawyer , 71 N.C. 70 ; Love v. Johnston , 72 N.C. 415 . … Norment v. Charlotte , 85 N.C. 387 ; Cain v. Commissioners , 86 N.C. 8 ; Southerland v. Goldsboro , 96 N.C. 49 ; Duke v. Brown, ib. , 127; McDowell v. Construction Co. , 96 N.C. 514 ; Rigsbee v. Durham , 98 N.C. 81 .

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Greenleaf v. Norfolk Southern Railroad

    91 N.C. 33 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1884

    secretary of a railroad corporation to make contracts binding' such corporation, and unless from t,be evidence the jury believe that the secretary of the defendant company was expressly authorized by a regular vote of the board … We cannot know how much evidence was offered not contained in the statement on appeal., Ward v. Herrin, 4 Jones, 23 ; Long v. Gantley, 4 Dev. & Bat., 313 ; Brumble v. Brown, 71 N. C., 513 ; Whissenhunt v. Jones, 80 N.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Briggs v. Industrial Bank of Richmond

    197 N.C. 120 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 24, 1929

    The remedy prescribed by law for usurious transactions is thus stated in Ripple v. Mortgage Corp., 193 N. C., 422 , 137 S. E., 156 . … Shober v. Hauser, 20 N. C., 222 .

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • A-S-P Associates v. City of Raleigh

    298 N.C. 207 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 3, 1979

    Surplus Store v. Hunter, 257 N.C. 206 , 125 S.E. 2d 764 (1962); State v. Brown, 250 N.C. 54 , 108 S.E. 2d 74 (1959); Winston-Salem v. Southern R.R. Co., 248 N.C. 637 , 105 S.E. 2d 37 (1958). … See Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C. 458 , 202 S.E. 2d 129 (1974).

    Cited 85 timesPublished
  • In re the Appeal from the Environmental Management Commission

    80 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 1, 1986

    the *7 Board’s evidence. … Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446 , 290 S.E. 2d 653 (1982); Farmers Bank v. Michael T. Brown Distributors, Inc., supra.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Bennett v. Winston-Salem Southbound Railway Co.

    170 N.C. 389 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 8, 1915

    Brown v. Electric Co., 138 N. C., 533 ; Stratford v. Greensboro, supra. … We will call special attention, though, to Brown v. Electric Co., Stratford v. Greensboro, and Moore v.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Owens v. Voncannon

    252 N.C. 461 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 27, 1960

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Town of Canton v. Harris

    177 N.C. 10 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 3, 1919

    In Sharp v. … In Brown v. Power Co., 140 N. C., 333 -337, the only.testimony considered that in any way militates against this position seems to have been admitted without objection. And in Boggan v. Horne, 97 N.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Whitaker v. Earnhardt

    289 N.C. 260 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 29, 1976

    Brown, 262 N.C. 438 , 137 S.E. 2d 827 ; Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577 , 58 S.E. 2d 351 . … Hall v. Board of Elections, 280 N.C. 600 , 187 S.E. 2d 52 ; Sternberger v. Tannenbaum, 273 N.C. 658 , 161 S.E. 2d 116 ; London v. London, 271 N.C. 568 , 157 S.E. 2d 90 .

    Cited 37 timesPublished
  • In Re the Appeal of Martin

    286 N.C. 66 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 26, 1974

    Brown v. Comrs. of Richmond County, 223 N.C. 744 , 28 S.E. 2d 104 (1943). We held in State v. … Board of Review v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 200 Ala. 532 , 76 So. 858 (1917) ; City of Sebring v. Wolf, 105 Fla. 516 , 141 So. 736 (1932) ; C. Hewitt and Sons Co. v. Keller, supra; Baltimore County v.

    Cited 49 timesPublished
  • Corwin v. British Am. Tobacco P.L.C.

    2015 NCBC 74 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 4, 2015

    Reynolds Tobacco Company acquired BAT’s United States subsidiary, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. … Estate of Browne v. Thompson, 219 N.C. App. 637, 639–40, 727 S.E.2d 573, 575–76 (2012) (refusing to reject the “special injury” test pursuant to Tooley in favor of the Barger test).

    Cited 0 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.