Case law

Hall v. Henderson Cnty.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 2026

V. … HALL V.

State v. Cates

154 N.C. App. 737 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 2002

In State v. Brown, 146 N.C. … In State v. Brown, this Court rejected this argument, and we are bound by the decision in that case. 146 N.C. App. 299, 301-02 , 552 S.E.2d 234, 235-36 (2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 2305 , 152 L. Ed. 2d 1061 (2002).

Stockton v. Wake County

173 F. Supp. 3d 292 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 24, 2016

See, e.g., Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60-64 , 131 S.Ct. 1350 , 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011); Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403-04 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997). … Kutz, board certified in emergency medicine with a subspeciality of emergency medical services,.

Beasley-Kelso Associates, Inc. v. Tenney

30 N.C. App. 708 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 6, 1976

State v. Watson, 287 N.C. 147 , 214 S.E. 2d 85 (1975); Knutton v. Cofield, supra. … Harrison v. Brown, 222 N.C. 610 , 24 S.E. 2d 470 (1943), quoting 8 Am. Jur., Brokers, § 186, p. 1099.

State v. Patterson

288 N.C. 553 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1975

During cross-examination the court asked Sergeant Brown, “Did he say he wanted to go ahead and make a statement?” Brown replied, “Yes, sir, he did. … Bowman v. Blankenship, 165 N.C. 519 , 81 S.E. 2d 746 ; Brown v. Loftis, 226 N.C. 762, 764 , 40 S.E. 2d 421 ; Stansbury, of. cit. § 50. . . .” See Gibson v. Whitton, 239 N.C. 11 , 79 S.E. 2d 196 (1953).

In Re Appeal of Ramseur

120 N.C. App. 521 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 7, 1995

See Brooks v. Ansco & Associates, 114 N.C. App. 711, 716 , 443 S.E.2d 89, 92 (1994). The proper manner of review by this Court depends upon the particular issues presented on appeal. Id. (citing Walker v. … State v. Smith, 265 N.C. 173, 180 , 143 S.E.2d 293, 299 (1965) (quoting Skinner v. State, 189 Okla. 235, 238 , 115 P. 2d 123, 126 , reversed on other grounds, 316 U.S. 535 , 62 S. Ct. 1110 , 86 L.

In Re Appeal of McLean Trucking Co.

281 N.C. 242 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 10, 1972

The time limitation thus imposed upon the County Board of Equalization and Review by this statute is mandatory. Spiers v. Davenport, 263 N.C. 56 , 138 S.E. 2d 762 . … Even if this term could be construed to include property improperly listed (see, Smith v.

First Presbyterian Church v. St. Andrews Presbyterian College, Inc.

254 N.C. 717 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 24, 1961

This statement of the law was quoted with approval by this Court in Restaurant, Inc. v. Charlotte, 252 N.C. 324 , 113 S.E. 2d 422 , and Castle v. Threadgill, 203 N.C. 441 , 166 S.E. 313 . Walker,' J., said in Cobb v. … Recent applications of the rule appear in Coach Lines v. Brotherhood, 254 N.C. 60 ; McDaniel v. Quackenbush, 249 N.C. 31 , 105 S.E. 2d 94 ; Railroad v. Greensboro, 247 N.C. 321 , 101 S.E. 2d 347 ; Edwards v.

State v. Moore

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 3, 2023

Brown, 239 N.C. … Brown.

Fix v. City of Eden

175 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 20, 2005

Barnhardt v. City of Kannapolis, 116 N.C. App. 215, 217 , 447 S.E.2d 471, 473 (1994). … Brown v. Flowe, 349 N.C. 520, 522 , 507 S.E.2d 894, 896 (1998). Our legislature, in enacting the current version of N.C. Gen.

Cities4life, Inc. v. City of Charlotte

341 F. Supp. 3d 621 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 18, 2018

Doe v. Va. Dep't of State Police , 713 F.3d 745 , 758 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Miller v. Brown , 462 F.3d 312 , 319 (4th Cir. 2006) ). … Although the State Board argued that further review by the Board was needed before the claim could become ripe, the Fourth Circuit found that the State Board had already "manifested its views" that the regulations applied

Goins v. Cross Creek Apparel

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Jul 25, 1996

Brown reached a diagnosis of cervical disc disease at the C5-C6 level. Dr. Brown recommended continuing conservative care and made an appointment for plaintiff on April 17, 1992. … Henry v. A.C. Lawrence Leather Co. , 231 N.C. 477 , 57 S.E.2d 760 (1950). 3.

J. F. White Co. v. Carroll

147 N.C. 330 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 15, 1908

Warehouse Co. v. Ozment, 132 N. C., 839 ; Bispham’s Equity, sec. 469; Ely v. Early, 94 N. C., 8 . … Lehew v. Hewett, 138 N. C., 6 . The Judge, therefore, was right when he held that there was no evidence to sustain the affirmative of the first issue, for that was virtually what he decided. Latta v. Bell, 122 N.

Ponder v. Joslin

262 N.C. 496 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 30, 1964

Burgin v. Board of Elections, supra. … Hayes v. Benton, 193 N.C. 379 , 137 S.E. 169 ; Wilkinson v. Board of Education, 199 N.C. 669 , 155 S.E. 562 ; Harris v. Board of Education, supra.” Hinshaw v. McIver, 244 N.C. 256 , 93 S.E. 2d 90 ; Watson v.

O'Herron v. Jerson

82 N.C. App. 434 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 1986

Mayo v. Mayo, 73 N.C. App. 406 , 326 S.E. 2d 283 (1985). As appears from the record before this Court, the only competent evidence presented was the verified supplemental petition, Schoolfield v. … State Bar v. Wilson, 74 N.C. App. 777 , 330 S.E. 2d 280 (1985), the trial court was precluded from considering them as affidavits in the cause because they were not verified. Schoolfield, supra. In Brown v.

Raynor v. N.C. Department of Correction

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Apr 30, 2010

Stat. § 97-84 ; Smith v. William Muirhead Constr. Co. , 27 N.C. App. 286 , 291 , 218 S.E.2d 717 , 720 (1975). 4. … Stat. § 97-2 (6); Snead v. Mills, Inc. , supra. 5.

Trustees of the L. C. Wagner Trust v. Barium Springs Home for Children, Inc.

102 N.C. App. 136 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 1991

State Ex Rel. Walser v. Bellamy

120 N.C. 212 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1897

Hoke v. Henderson, supra; King v. Hunter, 65 N. C.. 693; Cotten v. Ellis, 52 N. C., 545 ; Bailey v. Caldwell, 68 N. C., 472 ; Bunting v. Gales, 77 N. C., 283 . … Nichols v. McKee, 68 N. C., 429 . The Act did not in fact abolish the offices changing the name of the board, although the Act declared that the Board of Directors was abolished.

Murdock v. Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railroad

159 N.C. 131 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 8, 1912

Burney v. Allen, 127 N. C., 476 ; S. v. McDowell, 129 N. C., 523 ; Britt v. R. R., 148 N. C., 37 . … Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C., 367 ; Herndon v. R. R., 121 N. C., 498 , and eases there cited; Crenshaw v. R. R., 140 N. C., 193 . The motion is denied. No error. •

American Trust Co. v. Nicholson

162 N.C. 257 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 13, 1913

Curtis v. Brown, 29 Ill., 230 ; Weld v. Weld, 23 R. I., 318; Johns v. Johns, 172 Ill., 470 ; Conkling v. Washington Univ., 2 Md. Ch., 504; Stanly v. Colt, 72 U. S., 169 ; Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S., 183 ; Gavin v. … The jurisdiction and power of a court of chancery in this respect were the subject of discussion in this Court in Curtiss v. Brown, 29 Ill., 201 ; Voris v. Sloan, 68 id., 588, and Hale v.