Case law

Anderson v. Assimos

146 N.C. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 2, 2001

Brown at North Carolina Baptist Hospital. ... Dr. Brown put water in [Plaintiff’s] ears and she could not feel the water. Dr. Brown asked [Plaintiff] . . . what medicine she had been given. ... At the time . . . … Elam, 302 N.C. 157, 161 , 273 S.E.2d 661, 664 (1981); see also State v. Brown, 320 N.C. 179, 211 , 358 S.E.2d 1, 22 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 970 , 98 L. Ed. 2d 406 (1987); State v.

Gardner v. City of Reidsville

269 N.C. 581 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 8, 1967

See also State v. Dixon, 215 N.C. 161 , 1 S.E.2d 521 ; Sams v. Board of Com'rs., 217 N.C. 284 , 7 S.E.2d 540 ; Carolina-Virginia Coastal Highway v. Coastal Turnpike Authority, 237 N.C. 52 , 74 S.E.2d 310 . … G.S. § 18-39 provides: "Powers and authority of Board.

Silvers v. Horace Mann Insurance

90 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 1988

Defendant cites Brown v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 285 N.C. 313 , 204 S.E. 2d 829 (1974) and Buchanan v. Buchanan, 83 N.C. … Brown, 285 N.C. at 319-20 , 204 S.E. 2d at 834 .

Doe on the Demise of Gibson v. Gibson

49 N.C. 425 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1857

Davidson v. Davidson, 1 Hawks Rep. 161 ; Brown v. Brown, 8 Ire. Rep. 134 ; Long v. Norcom, 4 Ire.

Faircloth v. . Kenlaw

165 N.C. 228 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 1, 1914

Galvin v. Prentice, 145 N. Y., 162 , citing King v. Brown, 2 Hill, 481 ; Lockwood v. … Albea v. Griffin, 22 N. C., 9 ; Hedgepeth v. Rose, 95 N. C., 41 ; Tucher v. Markland, 101 N. C., 422 ; Vick v. Vick, 126 N. C., 123 .

Lee v. Walker

234 N.C. 687 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1952

Kennedy v. Williams, 87 N.C. 6 ; Stewart v. Frink, 94 N.C. 487 ; S. v. Long, 94 N.C. 896 ; S. v. Fisher, 117 N.C. 733 , 23 S.E. 158 ; Sugg v. Greenville, supra; Wittson v. Dowling, supra; Irwin v. Charlotte, supra; R. … In Mebane v.

Crawley v. . Stearns

194 N.C. 15 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 10, 1927

Brown and Alice E. … The principle is stated with like clearness by Brown, J., in Weeks v. Wilkins, 139 N.

State v. Nolan

211 N.C. App. 109 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 19, 2011

As with all seizures, checkpoints conform with the Fourth Amendment only ‘if they are reasonable.’ ” State v. Rose, 170 N.C. App. 284, 288 , 612 S.E.2d 336, 339 (2005) (quoting State v. … “In order to make this determination, this Court has required application of the three-prong test set out by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50 , 61 L. Ed. 2d 357, 361 , 99 S.

Lamb v. . Smith

215 N.C. 463 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 19, 1939

As was said in Brown v. Williams, 196 N. … Dodson v. McAdams, 96 N. C., 149 ; Avitt v. Smith, 120 N. C., 392 .” We think the Brown case, supra, similar to the present action. In the judgment we can see no error. Affirmed.

MB Realty Group, Inc. v. Gaston County Board of Education

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 28, 2019

P. 37(e); and (2) [the Court’s] ‘inherent power’” Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chambers v. … Nuvasive, Inc. v. Kormanis, No. 1:18- cv-282, 2019 WL 1171486, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 2019) (citing Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphee, 326 U.S. 438, 444 (1946)).

White v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.

251 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 4, 1966

As *159 stated by the court in Carroll v. … Wachovia Bank & Trust Company v. Stevenson, 196 N.C. 29 , 144 S.E. 370 (1928). The court in Burton v.

Barden v. . R. R.

152 N.C. 318 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 13, 1910

BROWN and WALKER, JJ., concur in result. Action heard on demurrer to the complaint. … R. v. Zeiler , 54 Kan. 340 ; R. R. v. Artist , 60 Fed., 365 ; Powers v. Hospital , 109 Fed., 294 ; Maine v. R. R. , 109 Iowa 260 ; York v. R. R. , 98 Iowa 544 ; Quinn v. R. R. , 94 Tenn. 713 ; R. R. v.

Multimedia Publishing of North Carolina, Inc. v. Henderson County

145 N.C. App. 365 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 7, 2001

Publishing Co. v. Board of Education, 29 N.C. App. 37, 47 , 223 S.E.2d 580, 587 (1976). This is so notwithstanding the countervailing policy favoring confidentiality between attorneys and clients. … Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium Dist., 912 P.2d 1345, 1353 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995) ....

Schulze v. Meritor Automotive

163 F. Supp. 2d 599 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 30, 2000

Brown interviewed plaintiff, who said that she and Wells were Mends and that they were not having an affair. … Raley v. Board of St. Mary’s County Comm’rs, 752 F.Supp. 1272, 1281 (D.Md.1990).

Johnson v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance

44 N.C. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 1979

Roy Johnson stated in his deposition that on 27 November 1973, at the time Phoenix offered to amend its previous loan commitment, “we had been assured by the people at Cameron-Brown that this would be one of the contingencies … Hardy v. Toler, 288 N.C. 303 , 218 S.E. 2d 342 (1975).

Jackson v. N.C. Dep't of Commerce

242 N.C. App. 328 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2015

Quick v. United Ben. Life Ins., 287 N.C. 47 , 59, 213 S.E.2d 563 , 570 (1975). See also Skipper v. Yow, 249 N.C. 49 , 56, 105 S.E.2d 205 , 210 (1958) ; State v. … See Nantz v. Emp't Sec.

Taylor v. . Taylor

210 N.C. 837 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1936

Suffice it to say, it fails to establish liability under the principles announced in Hankins v. Hankins , 202 N.C. 358 , 162 S.E. 766 ; Townsend v. Holderby , 197 N.C. 550 , 149 S.E. 855 ; Brown v. … Brown , 124 N.C. 19 , 32 S.E. 320 . There was no error in dismissing the action as in case of nonsuit. Affirmed. *Page 838

Banyan Mezzanine Fund II, Lp v. Rowe

2016 NCBC 35 · North Carolina Business Court · May 10, 2016

In other words, when a board refuses a pre-suit demand, the only permissible challenge is to the board's good faith and to the reasonableness of its investigation. See Spiegel, 571 A.2d at 777; Levine v. … Mills v. Esmark, Inc., 91 F.R.D. 70, 73 (N.D. Ill. 1981). Delaware requires that the board "promptly" advise "what action the board has taken in response to the demand." Grimes v. Donald, 673 A.2d at 1218.

State v. Crooms

261 N.C. App. 230 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 4, 2018

The Board argues that the petition for remission did not provide statutorily required evidence to support the Surety’s motion, and in partially granting  STATE V. … The trial court then ordered the Board to remit $7,500.00 to the Surety. -4-  STATE V.

Bring v. North Carolina State Bar

348 N.C. 655 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 30, 1998

In Bowens v. … Bowens v. Board of Law Examiners, 57 N.C. App. 78, 82 , 291 S.E.2d 170, 172 (1982).