Case law

State Ex Rel. Barnett v. Midgett

151 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 8, 1909

“No such jurisdiction is conferred, and the board of canvassers is not adapted to such purpose.” Gatling v. Boone, supra. … C., 583 ; State v. Cooper, 101 N. C., 684 ; Gatling v. Boone, 101 N. C., 64; Boyer v. Teague, 106 N. C., 576 ; Cozart v. Fleming, 123 N. C., 547 .

Flippin Ex Rel. Wright v. Jarrell

301 N.C. 108 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 7, 1980

Stanley v. Brown, 43 N.C. App. 503 , 259 S.E. 2d 408 (1979), disc. rev. denied, 299 N.C. 332 , 265 S.E. 2d 397 (1980). … Stanley v. Brown, supra, 43 N.C. App. 503 , 259 S.E. 2d 408 . See, e.g., Spencer v. McDowell Motor Co., 236 N.C. 239 , 72 S.E. 2d 598 (1952).

In Re Carter

262 N.C. 360 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 10, 1964

Williamson v. High Point, 214 N.C. 693 , 200 S.E. 388 ; Carroll v. Board of Trade, 259 N.C. 692 , 131 S.E. 2d 483 ; Boyd v. … Williamson v. High Point, supra; Carroll v. Board of Trade, supra; 60 C.J.S., Motions and Orders, § 39(b).

Willis Bros., Inc. v. Ocean Scallops, Inc.

356 F. Supp. 1151 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 1972

Yates v. Brown, 275 N.C. 634 , 170 S.E.2d 477 (1965). … Yates v. Brown, supra. The Agency Agreement contains a “best efforts” provision obligating it to use its best efforts to process, package and sell all the product delivered to it by the defendant.

Rowe v. . Rowe-Coward Co.

208 N.C. 484 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 18, 1935

Ilonnold on Workmen’s Compensation, 154, sec. 41; Horsman v. Richmond, F. & P. R. Co., 151 S. E. (Va.), 158. But, as pointed out by Connor, J., in Brown v. R. … Southern v. Cotton Mills, 200 N. C., at p. 165; West v. East Coast Fertilizer Co., 201 N. C., 556 (558); Morgan v. Cloth Mills, supra; Holmes v. Brown, 207 N. C., 785 (786).

Spaugh v. City of Charlotte

239 N.C. 149 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 15, 1954

In Burroughs v. … Hunsucker, 211 N.C. 153, 189 S.E. 664 ; S. v. Calcutt, 219 N.C. 545 , 15 S.E. 2d 9 ; McLean v. Board of Elections, 222 N.C. 6 , 21 S.E. 2d 842 .

Price v. . Sharp

24 N.C. 416 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1842

If Rives' name had been put on the *Page 297 bills, the case of Beck v. Robley , 1 H. Bl., 89, is a direct authority against this action. In that case a bill was drawn by Brown on Robley, payable to Hodgson or order. … Robley payment by Brown struck out the indorsement of Hodgson, whereas the payment by Pywell (the drawer in Callow v.

Yancey v. Heafner

268 N.C. 263 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 12, 1966

Also in S. ex rel Tacoma School District v. … Durham County v. Addison, 262 N.C. 280 , 136 S.E. 2d 600 . The court found no error in the decision of the Board of Adjustment, and we agree with its action. The decision is Affirmed.

GUILFORD COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v. Simmons

102 N.C. App. 325 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 1991

In Durham County v. Addison, 262 N.C. 280 , 136 S.E.2d 600 (1964), the defendant appealed to the Board of Adjustment for a variance after he had been denied a building permit. … Our Courts have consistently required litigants aggrieved by decisions of Boards of Adjustment to seek relief as mandated by statute. See City of Hickory v. Catawba Valley Machinery Co., 39 N.C.

Couch v. North Carolina Employment Security Commission

89 N.C. App. 405 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 1988

Robertson v. Brown, 139 So. 2d 226 (La. App. 1962). … Corp. v. Board of Review, Etc., 122 N.J. Super. 366 , 300 A. 2d 572 (1973) (per curiam) (wage reduction from $4.27 an hour to $3.35 an hour was good cause); Edwards v. Commonwealth, Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Rev., 35 Pa.

Dale Ex Rel. Dale v. City of Morganton

270 N.C. 567 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 20, 1967

In Fulghum v. … There, the proprietor of a summer resort which had been furnishing water and light to the plaintiff’s cottage refused to continue to do so unless he built a septic tank approved by the Board of Health.

State v. . Vanhook

182 N.C. 831 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 2, 1921

S. v. Sherrard, 117 N. C., 717 ; S. v. Earnhardt, 107 N. C., 789 ; S. v. Austin, 114 N. C., 855 ; S. v. Tyson, 111 N. C., 687 ; S. v. Hay, 126 N. C., 999 ; S. v. Blake, 157 N. C., 609 ; S. v. Burbage, 172 N. C., 876 . … But tbe board is not clothed witb arbitrary or unlimited discretion. Whether a license shall be granted upon application is a matter within tbe limited legal discretion of tbe board.

Hylton v. Town of Mount Airy

227 N.C. 622 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 17, 1947

Vestal v. Machine Co., 219 N. C., 468 , 14 S. E. (2d), 427 ; Manning v. Ins. Co., ante, 251. If the judgment be supported by the facts it will be affirmed. Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N. C., 537 , 35 S. E. (2d), 609 . … See Boyden v. Achenbach, 79 N. C., 539 ; Wright v. Lake Waccamaw, 200 N. C., 616 , 158 S. E., 99 , and cases cited.

Harkrader v. . Lawrence

190 N.C. 441 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1925

Rhodes v. Love, 153 N. C., 469 ; Johnston v. Board of Elections, 172 N. C., 162, 167 . The second ground of demurrer is equally untenable. … Barnett v. Midgett, 151 N. C., 1 . The third cause of demurrer likewise is inadequate.

Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Sloan

227 N.C. 151 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 26, 1947

Light Co. v. Moss, 220 N. C., 200 , 17 S. E. (2d), 10 ; Highway Com. v. Hartley, 218 N. C., 438 , 11 S. E. (2d), 314 ; Land Co. v. Traction Co., 162 N. C., 503 , 78 S. E., 299 ; Brown v. Power Co., 140 N. … McMahan v. R. R., 170 N. C., 456 , 87 S. E., 237 ; Creighton v. Water Commissioners, supra; Brown v. Power Co., supra.

Washington v. Washington

148 N.C. App. 206 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 28, 2001

from bed and board. … Our Court has held that a divorce from bed and board pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-7 (1985) is a final order. Kale v. Kale, 25 N.C.

Reed v. State Highway & Public Works Commission

209 N.C. 648 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 18, 1936

In Public Laws of 1931, ch. 145, sec. 13, is the following: “The board of county commissioners of any county may, when in the opinion of said board the best interests of the people of said county or of any particular community … In the petition of the Board of Commissioners of Polk County is the following: “In the opinion of this board the best interests of the people of Polk County and of the particular communities which include the towns of Tryon

Russos v. Wheaton Industries

145 N.C. App. 164 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2001

Brown v. S & N Communications, Inc., 124 N.C. App. 320, 330 , 477 S.E.2d 197, 203 (1996) (citing Watson v. Winston-Salem Transit Authority, 92 N.C. App. 473, 476 , 374 S.E.2d 483, 485 (1988)). … See, e.g., Brown, 124 N.C. App. 320 , 477 S.E.2d 197 ; Watson, 92 N.C. App. 473 , 374 S.E.2d 483 .

Stanley v. Cox

253 N.C. 620 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 20, 1961

This language of Pomeroy has been approved by the Supreme Court of the United States in Walker v. Brown, 165 U.S. 654 , 41 L. Ed. 865 , and in United States v. Butterworth — Judson Corp., 267 U.S. 387 , 69 L. Ed. 672 . … A good example of an equitable lien is found in Walker v. Brown, swpra. In that case, one T. E.

Turner v. . Turner

205 N.C. 198 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 20, 1933

The law in this cause has been settled by this Court in Lentz v. Lentz , 193 N.C. 742 ; S. c. , 194 N.C. 673 ; Brown v. Brown, ante , 64. The judgment of the court below is Affirmed.