Case law

McArver v. Gerukos

265 N.C. 413 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 13, 1965

State v. Brown, 221 N.C. 301 , 20 S.E. 2d 286 . Any violation of its provisions is declared to be a criminal offense. … In Courtney v.

Doe v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 6, 2020

) ) CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG ) BOARD OF EDUCATION, BRADLEY … Id. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

Gean v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 7, 2019

Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). … Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d at 47.

High Rock Lake Partners, LLC v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

204 N.C. App. 55 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 18, 2010

On 20 September 2005, the Davidson County Planning and Zoning Board (“the Planning Board”) conducted a meeting regarding the preliminary plat. … Brown v. Flowe, 349 N.C. 520, 523 , 507 S.E.2d 894, 896 (1998) (“A question of statutory interpretation is ultimately a question of law for the courts.”).

McNeill v. Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina-Constituent N.C. A & T State University

837 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 14, 2011

A & T Board, she first complained to her employer of gender discrimination, and in June 2009, she filed an EEOC charge. In December 2009, she received her second unsatisfactory performance review. 1. … A & T’s Board in January 2009 about her employer’s alleged gender discrimination. 2.

Jeffreys v. Hocutt

195 N.C. 339 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 21, 1928

Brown v. Harding, 171 N. C., at p. 691; Mfg. Co. v. Blalock, 192 N. C., at p. 413. In Pub. Co. v. Barber, 165 N. … Brown v. Kinsey, 81 N. C., p. 245, and cases cited. The Kimbrough case was cited and approved in Sanders v. Sanders, 167 N.

Dockside Discotheque, Inc. v. BD. OF ADJUSTMENT OF TOWN OF SOUTHERN PINES

115 N.C. App. 303 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 21, 1994

White v. … Id. at 700-02; see Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 45 , 43 L.

Walsh v. Wrightsville Beach Bd. of Alderman

644 S.E.2d 224 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 2007

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of our decision in State v. Hart, 361 N.C. ____ , 644 S.E.2d 201 , 2007 WL 1297237 (2007). REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Norton v. Columbus County Board of Elections

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 2019

ORDER COLUMBUS COUNTY BOARD OF ; ELECTIONS, et al., ) Defendants. … See Andes v. Versant Corp., 788 F.2d 1033, 1036-37 (4th Cir. 1986).

Heater v. Heater

53 N.C. App. 101 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1981

Bank v. Supply Co., 226 N.C. 416, 432 , 38 S.E. 2d 503, 514 (1946). The opinion of the great Chief Justice Stacy in Cole v. … Brown v. Board of Education, 269 N.C. 667 , 153 S.E. 2d 335 (1967); In re Vinson, 42 N.C. App. 28 , 255 S.E. 2d 644 (1979). We hold that the findings of fact and evidence do not support the challenged conclusion of law.

Smith v. Robeson County Public Schools

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Dec 28, 2010

Bracey Advertising Co. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

35 N.C. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1978

By its own terms, Article 11 provisions were to have no force or effect “until federal funds are made available to the State for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Article, and the Board of Transportation

Norton v. Columbus County Board of Elections

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 13, 2020

“[AJt least 3 protests were appealed to the State Board of Elections to be heard after such board resumes on January 31, 2019[,]” and “the intentions of the protesters were made on the record as they informed the [CCBOE … Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149-52 (1984) (per curiam); Sys. Signs Supplies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 903 F.2d 1011, 1013-14 (Sth Cir. 1990) (per curiam).

Pittman Ex Rel. Pittman v. Swanson

255 N.C. 681 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 22, 1961

Barnes v. Teer, 219 N.C. 823 , 15 S.E. 2d 379 ; Kolman v. Silbert, 219 N.C. 134 , 12 S.E. 2d 915 ; Spencer v. Brown, 214 N.C. 114 , 198 S.E. 630 ; Williams v. Coach Co., 197 N.C. 12 , 147 S.E. 435 ; Bowen v. … Aldridge v. Hasty, supra; Adams v. Board *686 of Education, 248 N.C. 506 , 103 S.E. 2d 854 . However, this seems prejudicial to the defendant rather than the plaintiff.

Miller v. Alleghany County Board of Education

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 5, 2020

See Superior Performers Inc. v. Phelps, 2015 WL 13650060, *1 (M.D.N.C. May 15, 2015) quoting Hurd v. NDL, Inc., 2012 WL 642425, at *1 (D. Md. … Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F. 3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (amended pleading renders original pleading of no effect); Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D.

Oliver v. . Highway Commission

194 N.C. 380 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 19, 1927

In Mayo v. … Charlotte v. Alexander , 173 N.C. 515 ; Houser v. Bonsal , 149 N.C. 51 . In R. R. v.

State v. Hightower

331 N.C. 636 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 25, 1992

We have held that N.C.G.S. § 15A-1212(8), which is a codification of the rule in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 776 (1968), applies to the qualification of jurors in all cases. State v. … State v. Quick, 329 N.C. 1, 17 , 405 S.E.2d 179, 189 (1991); State v. Watson, 281 N.C. 221, 227 , 188 S.E.2d 289, 293 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1043 , 34 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1972).

Justewicz v. Sealy Corp.

2012 NCBC 57 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 27, 2012

Brown, Gary E. Morin, Dean B. Nelson, Richard Roedel, Deborah G. Ellinger, and John B. Replogle were, at all relevant times, members of Sealy’s Board of Directors. These Defendants, along with Defendants Lawrence J. … See Cunniff v.

Whiting Manufacturing Co. v. Carolina Aluminum Co.

207 N.C. 52 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 19, 1934

In Land Co. v. Traction Co., 162 N. … Also, see Brown v. Mobley, 192 N. C., 470 . The right of eminent domain to these public-service corporations makes them amenable to State control. The State can control a public-service corporation, and has done so.

Johnson v. City of Winston-Salem

282 N.C. 518 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 26, 1973

In Carter v. … Anything short of a written claim signed by the plaintiff or his attorney and filed with the board of aldermen or the mayor within the ninety days, required a dismissal of the action. In Pender v.