Case law

Freeman v. . Belfer

173 N.C. 581 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 23, 1917

J., and BROWN, J., dissenting. This is an action to recover land, tried on the following agreed statement of facts: 1. … Dec., 360 : "A divorce from bed and board does not put an end to the marriage ties, or destroy the relation of husband and wife; Capel v. Powell , 17 C. B., N.S., 743; Moore v. Barber , 5 Giff., 43; Barber v.

Hutton v. Webb

124 N.C. 749 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 10, 1899

Norfleet v. Cromwell, 70 N. C., 634 ; Brown v. Keener, 74 N. C.,712, at pp. 716, 717; The Code Sections 3707, 3710, 3711; State v. Moore, 104 N. C., at pp 720, 721 and 722; Sands v. Manistee, 123 U. … Act in question it has always been held that the Courts will not inquire into the motives of legislators of any kind of grade, whether it be the Congress of the United States, the Legislature of the State, or a municipal board

Ward v. Mastec

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Feb 10, 2006

Brown on March 26, 2004. … Brown. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 ; Bryan v. First Free Will Baptist Church, 267 N.C. 111 , 147 S.E.2d 633 (1966); Lewter v. Abercrombie Enters, Inc., 240 N.C. 399 , 82 S.E.2d 410 (1954). 2.

Wallin v. Reagan

171 F. 758 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · Jul 28, 1909

Ed. 593 ; Hutton v. Bancroft Co. (C. C.) 77 Fed. 481 .” In Rogers v. Penobscot Mining Company, 154 Fed. 606, 610 , 83 C. C. … A. 73, 75 ; Celia, Adler & Tilles v. Brown (C. C.) 136 Fed. 439, 442 ; Cella v. Brown, 144 Fed. 742, 754 , 75 C. C. A. 608, 620 .

State v. Pender

218 N.C. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 17, 2012

First, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing defendant to use cross-examination to test whether witness Brown’s testimony revealed significantly new or different information. See State v. … Second, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it decided to “[g]rant a continuance or recess” to defendant to review the testimony of Brown. N.C.G.S. § 15A-910(a)(2) (2011); see State v. Hocutt, 177 N.C.

Newbern v. Barnes

3 N.C. App. 521 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1969

Brown v. Board of Education, 269 N.C. 667 , 153 S.E. 2d 335 . … Wooten v. Hobbs, 170 N.C. 211 , 86 S.E. 811 ; Mebane v. Womack, 55 N.C. 293 .

Limerick v. Rojo-Limerick

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 7, 2023

See, e.g., Taylor v. … Loosvelt v. Brown, 235 N.C.

In Re Jenkins v. .

157 N.C. 430 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 1911

Brown v. Eaton , 91 N.C. 26 . We will now proceed to consider the other question, whether the paper was found in a proper place of deposit. … Hughes v. Smith, supra . This Court said in Winstead v.

Myles v. LMS Inc.

251 N.C. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 30, 2016

DeWitt, a board-certified orthopaedic surgeon specializing in the foot and ankle complex. Dr. … See Peoples v.

State v. Anderson

9 N.C. App. 146 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 1970

State v. Barefoot, 241 N.C. 650 , 86 S.E. 2d 424 (1955). … Brown? Mr. Brown : That the note is the best evidence and the proper foundation hasn’t been laid. The Court: Why hasn’t it? Mr. Brown: Because, your Honor, no search has been made for it. The Court: Pardon? Mr.

Hill v. Elizabeth City

291 F. 194 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 20, 1923

—citing Stein v. Bienville Water Supply Co., 141 U. S. 67 , 11 Sup. Ct. 892, 35 L. Ed. 622 , and Turnpike Co. v. State, 3 Wall. 210 , 18 L. … Justice Brown said: “The case, upon the merits, depends largely upon the power of the city under its charter.

Tetterton v. Long Manufacturing Co.

314 N.C. 44 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 3, 1985

Glenn v. Board of Education of Mitchell County, 210 N.C. 525 , 187 S.E. 781 (1936). … Brown v. General Electric Co., 584 F. Supp. 1305 (E.D.N.C. 1983).

State v. Hairston

190 N.C. App. 620 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 20, 2008

Detective Stuart was thereafter able to identify Demario Brown ("Brown") as a suspect in the Moore robbery. … State v.

Innovative 55, LLC v. Robeson County

253 N.C. App. 714 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 6, 2017

Standard of Review “‘A legislative body such as the Board [of Commissioners], when granting or denying a conditional use permit, sits as a quasi-judicial body.’” Sun Suites Holdings, LLC v. … The Board was concerned that the conditional use permit would affect property values within the - 14 -  INNOVATIVE 55, LLC V.

State v. Williams

350 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1999

Brown to testify or to introduce his report into evidence. At common law, neither the State nor a defendant enjoyed a right of discovery. State v. … State v. Brown, 320 N.C. 179, 206 , 358 S.E.2d 1, 19 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 970 , 98 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1987).

Vick v. . Tripp

153 N.C. 90 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 29, 1910

This is discussed in Lumber Co. v. Hudson, at this term. In Johnston v. Case, 132 N. … C., 252 ; Reed v. Reed, 93 N. C., 462 ; Davidson v. Arledge, 88 N. C., 326 ; Hemphill v. Annis, 119 N.

State v. Ginyard

334 N.C. 155 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1993

State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563 , 313 S.E.2d 585 (1984). … In State v.

Cooper v. H. B. Owsley & Son, Inc.

43 N.C. App. 261 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 16, 1979

What was said in Beachboard v. Railway Co., 16 N.C. … Beachboard v. Railway Co., supra, at 679, 193 S.E. 2d at 583 ; accord, Gibbs v. Light Co., supra; Hargrove v. Plumbing and Heating Service, 31 N.C. App. 1 , 228 S.E. 2d 461 (1976).

Snyder v. Freeman

300 N.C. 204 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 3, 1980

Section 3(b) of the agreement provides that upon its consummation plaintiff “shall resign from the Board of Directors of General Aviation and [defendants Freeman and Groom] shall elect to the board to fill her vacancy Mr. … Walker v. Brown, 28 Ill. 378 , 81 Am. Dec. 287 ; Massachusetts General Hospital v. Fairbanks, 129 Mass. 78 , 37 Am. Rep. 303 ; Sullivan v. Detroit, Y. & A.A. R. Co., 135 Mich. 661 , 98 N.W. 756 , 64 L.R.A. 673 , 106 Am.

Halford v. . Senter

169 N.C. 546 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 6, 1915

Tbe agreed facts are tbat plaintiff was duly elected superintendent of bealtb for Harnett County by tbe board of bealtb of said county and his compensation fixed by said board at tbe rate of $600 per annum. … Tbe very question presented here was decided by this Court adversely to plaintiff’s contention in McCullers v. Commissioners, 158 N.