Case law

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.

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 .

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF GREENSBORO v. Farabee

284 N.C. 242 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 14, 1973

State v. Wiggins, 272 N.C. 147 , 158 S.E. 2d 37 (1967); State v. Ross, 272 N.C. 67 , 157 S.E. 2d 712 (1967); In re Duckett, 271 N.C. 430 , 156 S.E. 2d 838 (1967). … Board of Architecture v. Lee, 264 N.C. 602 , 142 S.E. 2d 643 (1965).

FIRST UNION NAT. BANK OF CAROLINA v. Hackney

266 N.C. 17 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1965

Howell v. Board of Com'rs., 121 N.C. 362 , 28 S.E. 362 . The right of action vests in the mother's personal representative. Graves v. Welborn, supra. … Long v. Landy, 35 N.J. 44 , 171 A.2d 1 (1961)." The dissenting opinion cites and quotes from Long v. Landy, supra, with emphatic approval, relying thereon in part as basis for the dissent. In Brown v.

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.

Knight v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.

168 N.C. 452 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 24, 1915

McNeely v. Oil Co., 52 W. Va., 616 ; Fair v. Gurthwright, 5 Ga., 6 ; Elliott v. … There have heretofore been several cases in our own Court which have gone very far in approval of the principle (Burns v. Stewart, 162 N. C., 360 ; Greenleaf v. Bartlett, 146 N. C., 495 ; Brown v. Brown, 106 N.

State Ex Rel. Lippard v. Roseman

70 N.C. 34 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1874

The facts of this case do not materially differ 'from those stated in the opinion of the Court in the preceding case of Armfield v. … Brown. *35 As we there held that ch. §9, sec. 2, of the acts of 1866-’67 by virtue of which, a trial 'by jury was demanded, had been .repealed, that case is decisive of this and for the reasons there ■stated, the judgment

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.

State v. Grimmett

54 N.C. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 17, 1981

The reasonableness requirement for seizures that are less intrusive than traditional arrests are (a) that they be supported by articulable and objective facts, Brown v. … In Brown v. Texas, two police officers approached Brown as he was coming out of an alley in a “high drug problem area” and requested identification.

Matter of Kozy

91 N.C. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 20, 1988

Co. v. Ingram, 63 N.C. App. 38 , 303 S.E. 2d 649 , cert. denied, 309 N.C. 819 , 310 S.E. 2d 348 (1983). … In re Dailey v. North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 60 N.C. App. 441 , 299 S.E. 2d 473 , rev’d on other grounds, 309 N.C. 710 , 309 S.E. 2d 219 (1983).

Discovery Ins. Co. v. The NC Dep't of Ins.

255 N.C. App. 696 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 3, 2017

Koufman v. … Stat § 58-37-65 specifically covers appeals of formal rulings by the Facility Board to the Commissioner, it controls over N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-2-50. Trustees of Rowan Tech. v. J.

Wearn v. North Carolina Railroad

191 N.C. 575 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1926

R. v. Olive, 142 N. C., 257 ; Earnhardt v. R. R., 157 N. C., 358 ; Hendrix v. R. R., 162 N. C., 9 ; R. R. v. Bunting, 168 N. C., 580 ; Tighe v. R. R., 176 N. C., 239 . … Carter v. White, 101 N. C., 30 ; Cox v. McGowan, 116 N. C., 131 ; Potter v. Bonner, 174 N. C., 20 .

Hutton v. . Webb

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

This board is to report to the commissioners of each of the counties the respective part of dividends that belong to it, and the commissioners shall "assess the same" and enter up judgment for said amount against the parties … It is an unauthorized exercise of sovereign power in the hands of this new board of commissioners, and we think the judgment of the court appealed from should be affirmed. MONTGOMERY, J., dissents.

State v. Parson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 18, 2016

Brown remained at 59 Fie Top Road. … V.

In Re Montaldo Corp.

207 B.R. 112 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 3, 1997

In doing so, Congress expressly overruled two Supreme Court cases, United States v. Embassy Restaurant, 359 U.S. 29 , 79 S.Ct. 554 , 3 L.Ed.2d 601 (1958), and Joint Industry Board v. … Similarly, Joint Industry Board v. United States, supra, involved contributions owed by the debtor/employer to an employees’ annuity plan established by a collective bargaining contract.

Privette v. Privette

30 N.C. App. 305 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 4, 1976

Brown v. Brown, 171 Kan. 249 , 232 P. 2d 603, 605-606 (1951). We consider the reasoning in Brown correct and adopt its interpretation of the law in this area. … See: Eudy v. Eudy, 288 N.C. 71 , 215 S.E. 2d 782 (1975). Cf: Newsome v. Newsome, 22 N.C. App. 651 , 207 S.E. 2d 355 (1974); Manning v. Manning, 20 N.C. App. 149 , 201 S.E. 2d 46 (1973).