Case law

Burwell v. . Linthicum

100 N.C. 145 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1888

. *148 In Brown v. … In Fisher v.

Griffin v. . Commissioners of Pasquotank

74 N.C. 701 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1876

(See the Syllabus in the preceding case of French and McRae v. The Commissioners of New Hanover County, ante , page 692.) … Cited: Board of Education v. Comrs. , 107 N.C. 112 ; R. R. v. Comrs. , 178 N.C. 453 . (707)

Lynch v. . Dewey

175 N.C. 151 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 27, 1918

And Justice Brown said, in Deaton v. … Neg., sec. 361; Sims v. Lindsay , 122 N.C. 678 ; Lloyd v. Hanes , 126 N.C. 359 ; Patterson v. Pittsburg , 76 Pa. 389 ; Kane v. R. R. , 128 U.S. 95 . In Lloyd v.

Cozard v. Hardwood Co.

139 N.C. 283 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 17, 1905

J., (Bankhead v. Brown, 25 Iowa, 540 ), it is said: “Could not tbe plaintiffs in tbis case, after having procured the road in question, abandon it at their pleasure? … A., 682; 15 Cyc., 583; Board of Health v. Van Hoesen, 87 Mich., 533 ; 14 L. R. A., 114. The question presented by this appeal and the argument to sustain the right was discussed in Healy Lumber Co. v. Mor ris, 63 L. R.

Gay v. Northampton County Schools

5 N.C. App. 221 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 1969

In White v. … In the light of the provisions of Rule XIV (2) and the opinion in White v.

Morpul, Inc. v. Glen Raven Knitting Mill, Inc.

238 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 1965

McCoy, Inc. v. Schuster, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 44 F.Supp. 499 ; Brown v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.E.D.Mich., 57 F.Supp. 825 ; Juniper Mills, Inc. v. J. W. Landenberger & Co., D.C.E.D.Pa., 6 F.R.D. 463 .” In Friedlander v. … From the adverse decision of the Examiner, the applicant appealed to the Patent Office Board of Appeals, which Board sustained the decision of the Examiner, and the Board adopted the reasoning of the Examiner as their reasons

Bentley v. Jonathan Piner Constr.

790 S.E.2d 379 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 20, 2016

PINER Opinion of the Court that “[q]uestions of statutory interpretation are questions of law and are reviewed de novo” (citing Brown v. … In Crawford v. Board of Education, 3 N.C.

Hemond

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 3, 2026

.”); Sigmon v. Brown, No. 5:20-CV-00179, 2021 WL 2295589, at *3 (W.D.N.C. … of Nassau Cnty. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 287 n.17 (1987)). Defendant Brown concedes that the Plaintiff is a person with a disability. [See Doc. 17 at 14].

G.D. v. KANNAPOLIS CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 9, 2023

v. Nicke, 168 F.R.D. 542, 543 (M.D.N.C. 1996); see also Powell v. … P. 17(b)(1); accord Hudnall v.

State Highway Commission v. Batts

265 N.C. 346 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 29, 1965

In Reed v. … Stratford v. City of Greensboro, supra; Brown v. Gerald, 100 Me. 351 , 70 L.R.A. 472 , 109 Am. St. Rep. 526 , 61 A. 785 ; Minnesota Canal and Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429 , 5 L.R.A.

State v. Odom

316 N.C. 306 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 2, 1986

See also State v. Gonzalez, 311 N.C. 80 , 316 S.E. 2d 229 (1984) (extrajudicial confessions). Here, Darris Brown did not testify. … In State v. Brown, however, this Court applied the “plain error” rule to a similar factual situation and awarded that defendant a new trial.

Wright v. Wake County Public Schools

103 N.C. App. 282 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 1991

See Barham v. Food World, 300 N.C. 329 , 266 S.E.2d 676 , *284 reh’g denied, 300 N.C. 562 , 270 S.E.2d 105 (1980).

State v. McDowell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 15, 2026

Henkel and Brown then physically removed Defendant from the truck. -2-  STATE V. … State v. Rivera, 264 N.C. App. 525, 536 (2019).

Qian v. Zheng

2025 NCBC 46 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 15, 2025

, or that the board’s decision was unreasonable.” … Todd Brown A. Todd Brown Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases

Mial v. Ellington.

134 N.C. 131 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1903

That at the regular meeting of the said board of commissioners, held in April, 1903, the said board caused public notice to be given that at the regular May meeting of the (135) said board a superintendent of roads for Wake … Irving Browne, in his note to Grant v. Secretary of State for India , 8 Eng. Rul.

Johnson v. Forsyth County

227 N.C. App. 276 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 21, 2013

C. v. Feinstein, 161 N.C. App. 700, 704 , 590 S.E.2d 401 , 403 (2003); see also Dunn v. N.C. Dep’t of Human Res., 124 N.C. App. 158, 161 , 476 S.E.2d 383, 385 (1996); Morrison v. … Bd,. of Elections v. Graham Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, _ N.C.

Tiller v. Phillips

2025 NCBC 63 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 15, 2025

JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass'n v. Browning, 230 N.C. App. 537, 541–42 (2013) (emphasis in original) (citations and internal punctuation omitted); Rabinowitz v. Suvillaga, 2019 NCBC LEXIS 8, at *28 (N.C. Super. Ct. … McFee, 2022 NCBC LEXIS 74, at *14; Surratt v. Brown, 2015 NCBC LEXIS 75, at *16 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 27, 2015) (determining that an LLC/partnership interest was “intangible”). 159.

State v. Walker

167 N.C. App. 110 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 2004

Since Browning did not object at trial, our review is limited to plain error. Id. at 661 , 300 S.E.2d at 378-79 . Browning cites State v. … State v. Allen, 2004 N.C. LEXIS 1112 . We defer ruling on Browning’s motion for appropriate relief pending guidance on this issue from our Supreme Court. V.

Perry v. Stancil

237 N.C. 442 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 8, 1953

Ed. 497 ; Maynard v. Board of Canvassers, 47 N.W. 756 ; S. v. Kees, 114 S.E. 617 . … Houston v. Brown, 52 N.C. 161 ; Wilson v. Arentz, 70 N.C. 670 ; Morris v. Morris, 94 N.C. 613 .

Parke Construction Co. v. Construction Management Co.

37 N.C. App. 549 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 15, 1978

Yates v. Brown, 275 N.C. 634, 640 , 170 S.E. 2d 477, 482 (1969). In the contracts before us, the words are plain; the language is clear; and the intent of the parties is ascertainable. … Co. v.