Case law

State Ex Rel. Baker v. Hobgood

126 N.C. 149 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 13, 1900

This Court has since bald in Dalby v. Hancock, 125 N. C., 325 , that tbe “old Board” was the legal Board. It is settled in Norfleet v. Slaton, 73 N. C., 548 , and Jones v. Jones, 80 N. … In such case tbe appointee of tbe de facto Board,wbicb is subsequently adjudged to be the de jure Board, clearly has tbe title ho the office. Ledford v. Green, 125 N. C., 254 .

Lovett v. Stone

239 N.C. 206 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 15, 1954

Brown, 123 N.C. 419 , 31 S.E. 877 ; Pearle v. Folsom, 2 N.C. 413 . … Caviness, 193 N.C. 311 , 136 S.E. 705 ; McGehee v. McGehee, *213 189 N.C. 558 , 127 S.E. 684 ; Royal v. Moore, 187 N.C. 379 , 121 S.E. 666 ; Brown v. Brown, 180 N.C. 433 , 104 S.E. 889 ; Elmore v.

Spencer v. N.C. Dept. of Correction

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Apr 10, 2001

During testimony the plaintiff admitted that he had received legal mail while at Brown Creek Correctional Institution. Plaintiff produced a letter stamped in by Brown Creek. … Stat. 143-291 et seq .; See , Taylor v. N.C. Department of Correction , 88 N.C. App. 446 , 363 S.E.2d 868 (1988). 2.

Edwards v. . Faulkner

215 N.C. 586 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 10, 1939

E., 660 ; Brown v. Mitchell, supra; Gurganus v. Bullock, 210 N. C., 670 , 188 S. E., 85 . … Allen, supra, and repeated in Hampton v. Griggs, supra; Welch v. Gibson, supra; Doggett v. Vaughan, supra; Brown v.

Markham v. . Carver

188 N.C. 615 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 26, 1924

Co. v. County Board of Equalization, 89 Neb., 469 , N. … Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y., 183 ; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Wright, 207 U. S., 127 ; Horton v. State, 60 Neb., 701 ; Dixon County v. Halstead, 23 Neb., 697 .” The Supreme Court of the U.

McCaskill v. Department of State Treasurer

204 N.C. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 15, 2010

Similarly, the Board rejected Finding of Fact No. 36 “on the grounds that it is an inexact summary of N.C. [Gen. Stat.] *385 § 135-4(v) as well as an incomplete summary of the testimony provided.” … Lenox, Inc. v. Tolson, 353 N.C. 659, 664 , 548 S.E.2d 513, 517 (2001) (citing Polaroid Corp. v. Offerman, 349 N.C. 290, 297 , 507 S.E.2d 284, 290 (1998)).

Harleysville Ins. v. Buzz Off Insect

668 S.E.2d 901 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 13, 2008

V. BUZZ OFF INSECT. No. 272A08. Supreme Court of North Carolina. November 13, 2008. David L. Brown, John I. Malone, Jr., Martha P. Brown, Greensboro, for Harleysville Mutual Ins. Co. Mack Sperling, John S.

Berger v. New Hanover Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs

2013 NCBC 45 · North Carolina Business Court · Sep 5, 2013

Russ v. Board of Education, 232 N.C. 128, 130, 59 S.E.2d 589, 591 (1950). … Crump v. Board of Education, 326 N.C. 603, 615, 392 S.E.2d 579, 585 (1990).

Finch v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., NA

156 N.C. App. 343 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 4, 2003

Woodard v. … Testator was a member of the local Wachovia Board of Directors, and trusted Wachovia’s decision-making capabilities.

Tonkins v. City of Greensboro, North Carolina

162 F. Supp. 549 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 23, 1958

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, 347 U.S. 483 , 74 S.Ct. 686 , 98 L.Ed. 873 ; Id., 1955, 349 U.S. 294 , 75 S.Ct. 753 , 99 L.Ed. 1083 ; Muir v. … In Clark v.

Davis v. Public Schools of Robeson County

115 N.C. App. 98 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 7, 1994

Davis was employed by respondent Board of Education for the Public Schools of Robeson County (hereafter, Board) as a tenured teacher on 23 March 1992 when he was suspended with pay pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes … Our Court examined North Carolina General Statutes § 115C-325(fl) in Evers v. Pender County Bd. of Education, 104 N.C. App. 1 , 407 S.E.2d 879 (1991), aff'd, 331 N.C. 380 , 416 S.E.2d 3 (1992).

State v. Powell

10 N.C. App. 726 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 12, 1971

In the totality of the arguments before us we are referred to the holdings in State v. Caviness, 7 N.C. App. 541 , 173 S.E. 2d 12 , and State v. King, 6 N.C. … The opinions in State v. Caviness, supra, and State v. King, supra, refer to State v. Mobley, 273 N.C. 471 , 160 S.E. 2d 334 , and the opinion in Mobley refers to State v.

William Brewster Co. v. Town of Huntersville

161 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 4, 2003

Co. v. Bd. of Aldermen, 284 N.C. 458, 468 , 202 S.E.2d 129, 136 (1974). … Because the Town Board did not present substantial evidence contra, the Town Board’s decision to deny the subdivision sketch plan was not supported by competent, material and substantial evidence, See Clark v.

Harleysville Ins. v. Buzz of Insect

672 S.E.2d 546 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 28, 2009

672 S.E.2d 546 (2009) HARLEYSVILLE INS. v. BUZZ OF INSECT. No. 272A08. Supreme Court of North Carolina. January 28, 2009. David L. Brown, John I. Malone, Jr., Martha P. Brown, Greensboro, for Harleysville Mutual Ins.

Copper ex rel. Copper v. Denlinger

363 N.C. 784 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 29, 2010

See Corum v. … But see Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 516 , 73 L.

Jackson v. . Browning

224 N.C. 75 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 1, 1944

S., 567), and annotations; Lincoln v. R. R., infra. (2) Is there, in plaintiff’s own evidence, such a clear inference of contributory negligence that reasonable minds could not come to a contrary conclusion? Lincoln v. … E., 601 ; Mulford v. Hotel Co., 213 N. C., 603 , 197 S. E., 169 ; Pearson v. Stores Corp., 219 N. C., 717, 721 , 14 S. E. (2d), 811 . Tbe evidence does not require extensive analysis for tbe purpose of this decision.

Weishaupt-Smith v. Town of Banner Elk

264 N.C. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 2019

See McCrann v. Vill. of Pinehurst, 216 N.C. … Consequently, we conclude the trial court’s substitution of Stevenson for Petitioner in this appeal does not alter our result under Duke Power Co. v. Board of Adjustment.

Waters v. Biesecker

60 N.C. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 4, 1983

Sides v. Hospital, 287 N.C. 14 , 213 S.E. 2d 297 (1975); Koontz v. City of *255 Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 513 , 186 S.E. 2d 897 (1972), pet. for reh. denied, 281 N.C. 516 (1972); and Casey v. Wake County, 45 N.C. … The Board can be, and was, sued in its own name. No notice to the Board was required in this case.

Burnette Industries, Inc. v. Danbar of Winston-Salem, Inc.

80 N.C. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 15, 1986

Nevertheless, the plaintiff argues that in Barnaby v. Boardman, supra, our *321 Supreme Court said that Brown v. … This statement in Barnaby v. Boardman, supra, is contained in a footnote. As pointed out in the dissent in Barnaby it was not/ necessary to overrule Brown for the Court to reach its decision.

Armstrong Ex Rel. Martin Ex Rel. Martin v. Armstrong

235 N.C. 733 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 11, 1952

Brown v. Brown, 195 N.C. 315 , 142 S.E. 4 ; Bolling v. Barbee, 193 N.C. 787 , 138 S.E. 163 ; Darden v. Matthews, 173 N.C. 186 , 91 S.E. 835 . … Hallyburton v. Carson, 86 N.C. 290 ; 57 Am. Jur., Wills, Sec. 608, p. 417. And tbe testator’s intent in making the codicil may be found in tbe codicil itself. Homer v. Brown, 16 U.S. 354 , 14 L. Ed. 970 .