Case law

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 .

Gassaway v. Barry

123 F. Supp. 670 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 2, 1954

Hayes v. Board of Trustees of Elon College, 224 N.C. 11 , 29 S.E.2d 137 , where the authorities are assembled. … Brown v. Bottoms Truck Lines, 227 N.C. 299 , 42 S.E.2d 71 ; Newsome v. Surratt, 237 N.C. 297 , 74 S.E.2d 732 , where the authorities are cited. Hodges v. Johnson, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 488 ; War Emergency Co-op Ass’n v.

New Hanover County v. Pleasant

59 N.C. App. 644 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1982

To allow a collateral attack on this unappealed Board decision would make the decision meaningless. The facts of this case are similar to the facts in Durham County v. … The decision of the Board of Adjustment is not subject to collateral attack. As stated by Adams, J., in S. v.

In Re Appeal of McElwee

304 N.C. 68 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 6, 1981

V. … Thompson v. Wake County Board of Education, 292 N.C. 406 , 233 S.E. 2d 538 .

Blow v. . Harding

161 N.C. 375 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1913

Brown, administrator of Short, obtained judgment against said L. J. Perkins, Spring Term, 1871, of Pitt. … Revisal, 574; Pipkin v. Adams, 114 N. C., 201 ; Bernhardt v. Brown, 122 N. C., 594 ; Harrington v. Hatton, 130 N. C., 90 ; Wilson v. Lumber Co., 131 N. C., 167 .

Bradford v. Weinstein

357 F. Supp. 1127 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 30, 1973

Lewis v. Rockefeller, 305 F.Supp. 258, 259 (S.D.N.Y.1969), affirmed 431 F.2d 368 . Nor does an inmate have a constitutional right to examine his record or parole board files. Tarlton v. … An inmate has no constitutional right to have the Board of Paroles specify the reasons for which parole has been denied. Lewis v. Rockefeller, supra, and Madden v.

Bauman v. Pasquotank Cty. ABC Bd.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 7, 2020

Plaintiff argues that the Board had no adverse possession during the term of the trust because Emma was estopped from suing to eject the Board under the theory of estoppel by deed. See, e.g., Crawley v. … Brooks v.

Vance S. Harrington & Co. v. Renner

236 N.C. 321 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 29, 1952

Kinney v. Sutton, 230 N.C. 404 , 53 S.E.2d 306 ; Lee v. Board of Adjustment, 226 N.C. 107 , 37 S.E.2d 128 , 168 A.L.R. 1 ; Appeal of Parker, 214 N.C. 51 , 197 S.E. 706 ; Elizabeth City v. … Martin v. Board of Com'rs of Wake, 208 N.C. 354 , 180 S.E. 777 ; Jones v. Madison County Com'rs, 137 N.C. 579 , 50 S.E. 291 .

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).

United States ex rel. Seldner v. Mellis

59 F. Supp. 682 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 21, 1945

He should immediately apply for a writ of habeas corpus which will give him his first chance to test the action of his local board. Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549 , 64 S.Ct. 346 . … If he fails to obey the orders of the local board until he is inducted into the army he is subject to prosecution in the Federal Court. Billings v. Truesdale, 321 U.S. 542 , 64 S. Ct. 737 .

Davis v. Town of Southern Pines

116 N.C. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1994

Michelle Brown, who was present, explained that she was my sister, that we were planning to call a cab to take us home, and that she would.take care of me. The officers did not allow Ms. Brown to call a cab for us. 11. … Brown, was willing to help me get home and to look out for me. I never refused her help. Before the officers arrived, Ms. Brown and I were planning to take a cab together. At the time, Ms.

Miller v. . London

60 N.C. 628 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1864

See, among other cases, Lea v. Brown , 56 N.C. 141 . The residuary clause in favor of the testator's wife is shown, by the same case of Lea v. … Kirkpatrick v. Rogers , 42 N.C. 44 ; Swann v. Swann , 58 N.C. 299 .

State v. Loesch

237 N.C. 611 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 29, 1953

S. v. Jackson, 218 N.C. 373 , 11 S.E. 2d 149 , 131 A.L.R. 143 ; S. v. Mooney, 173 N.C. 798 , 92 S.E. 610 ; S. v. Welch, 129 N.C. 579 , 40 S.E. 120 ; S. v. … G.S. 15-153; S. v. Ratliff, 170 N.C. 707 , 86 S.E. 997 ; S. v. Howley, 220 N.C. 113 , 16 S.E. 2d 705 ; S. v. Gregory, 223 N.C. 415 , 27 S.E. 2d 140 ; S. v. Davenport, supra; S. v.

Bledsoe v. . Snow

48 N.C. 99 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1855

Freeman, Jesse Brown, and William R. … Brown stated, Bledsoe came to him with E. Smith, and told him that he and Mr.

Brewer v. Rent-A-Ctr.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 2, 2023

David Jones, an expert, board-certified neurosurgeon. Dr. … The case was initially heard on 9 December 2020 before Deputy Commissioner Mary Claire Brown.

Ford v. . Manning

152 N.C. 151 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 9, 1910

May v. Thigpen, 107 N. C., 63 ; Warlick v. Bowman, 103 N. C., 122 ; Pool v. Trexler, 76 N. C., 297 ; Norfleet v. Cromwell, 70 N. C., 634 . … There is nothing in this connection which in any way conflicts with a decision of this Court made at the present term in Wolfenden v. Commissioners, ante, 83.

Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Perry

303 F. Supp. 3d 421 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 2018

Nusbaum v. Terrangi , 210 F.Supp.2d 784 , 787 (E.D. Va. 2002) (citing Board of Educ. v. Grumet , 512 U.S. 687 , 690, 114 S.Ct. 2481 , 129 L.Ed.2d 546 (1994) ). … Humanist Ass'n , 63 F.Supp.3d at 1282 ; Brown v. Livingston , 17 F.Supp.3d 616 , 631 (S.D.

Urquhart v. . R. R.

156 N.C. 582 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 15, 1911

The (583) *Page 470 case comes within the principles of law laid down in Coley v. R. R. , 128 N.C. 534 ; S. c. , 129 N.C. 407 . The plaintiff was employed by the defendant 1 December, 1907, as a brakeman on its road. … There was no issue as to assumption of risk, and this Court has held in Coley v. R. R. , 128 N.C. 534 ; S. c. , 129 N.C. 407 , and Biles v. R.