Case law

Richmond & Danville Railroad v. Commissioners of Alamance

84 N.C. 504 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 15, 1881

The cases cited in the brief are but in confirmation of this view. *507 Makepeace ex parte, 9 Ired. 91 ; Bryan v. Lawrence, 5 Jones, 337 ; Latham v. Blakely, 70 N. C., 368 ; Bond v. Coke, 71 N. C., 97 ; Deal v. … of the board.

State v. Gregory.

153 N.C. 646 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1910

S. v. Long, supra; Morehead, v. Brown, 51 N. C., 367 ; S. v. Leak, 80 N. C., 403 ; S. v. Thompson, 95 N. C., 596 ; S. v. Gilchrist, 113 N. C., 673 ; S. v. McKay, 150 N. C., 816 . … In S. v. May, 132 N.

Dean v. Leake

550 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 17, 2008

Wise v. … This standard enunciated by the North Carolina Supreme Court is more restrictive than that imposed by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v.

Wilkinson v. SRW/Cary Associates

112 N.C. App. 846 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1993

Brown v. Owens, 251 N.C. 348 , 111 S.E.2d 705 (1959); Blanton v. Sisk, supra. … Brown, 251 N.C. at 350 , 111 S.E.2d at 707 . Defendants contend that Brown v. Owens is no longer sound authority because the North Carolina Supreme Court has, in Barnaby v.

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.

State Ex Rel. County of Greene v. First National Bank of Snow Hill

194 N.C. 436 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 2, 1927

Brick Co. v. Gentry, 191 N. C., 636 ; Board of Health v. Comrs., 173 N. C., 250 ; Wood v. Kincaid, 144 N. C., 393 . … Board of Education v. Bateman, 102 N. C., 52 , 8 S. E., 882 . Tbe liability of tbe bondsman is tbe only question presented by tbe appeal.

Akers v. City of Mount Airy

175 N.C. App. 777 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362 , 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950). … App. at 504 , 462 S.E.2d at 698 (1995) (appeal of superior court’s remand to a licensing board for rehearing dismissed as interlocutory); Jennewein v. City Council of the City of Wilmington, 46 N.C.

Howard v. City of Kinston

148 N.C. App. 238 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 2, 2002

See Jarrell v. Board of Adjustment, 258 N.C. 476, 481 , 128 S.E.2d 879, 883 (1963). … Craver v. Board of Adjustment, 267 N.C. 40, 42 , 147 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1966); see also Burton v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 49 N.C. App. 439, 442 , 271 S.E.2d 550, 552 (1980).

O'DONNELL v. City of Asheville

113 N.C. App. 178 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 21, 1993

See Mullen v. Town of Louisburg, 225 N.C. 53, 61 , 33 S.E.2d 484, 489 (1945) (court will not interfere with local administrative board’s discretion until a complainant’s legal right is infringed). … See, e.g., Wayne County Bd. of Educ. v. Lewis, 231 N.C. 661 , 58 S.E.2d 725 (1950); Henry v. North Carolina Dept. of Transp., 44 N.C.

Bowles v. . Graded Schools

211 N.C. 36 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 16, 1936

Jones v. North Wilkesboro , 150 N.C. 647 . … Murphy v. Greensboro , 190 N.C. 269 .

McArthur v. . McEachin

64 N.C. 454 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1870

The remedy of such a party can be obtained in the Superior Court on an appeal, or by writ of certiorari: State v. Jacobs, Bus. 218; Bledsoe v. Snow, 3 Jon. 99. … The plaintiffs.in this action seek to rescind an order made by the Board of Commissioners in the exercise of their legitimate authority, and also to restrain, by injunction, an officer duly appointed by said Board, from discharging

Kass v. . Hedgpeth

226 N.C. 405 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 22, 1946

Eldridge v. Mangum, 216 N. C., 532 , 5 S. E. (2d), 721 ; Lee v. Board of Adjustment, ante, 107. … Lee v. Board of Adjustment, supra. On the record before us we conclude that there was error in continuing the restraining order to the hearing. Error.

Spruill v. Town of Columbia

153 N.C. 46 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 21, 1910

If so, it is not reversible error, Collins v. Collins, 125 N. C., 98 . Tbe chief exception is to tbe refusal of tbe motion to nonsuit. … Jones v. Ins. Co., 151 N. C., 54 , and cases cited; Tuttle v. Tuttle, 146 N. C., 484 .

State v. . Gragg

122 N.C. 1082 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 26, 1898

State v. Green, 117 N. C., 695 ; Young v. Alford, 118 N. C., 215 ; State v. Kiger, 115 N. C., 746 ; State v. Chancy, 110 N. C., 507 ; State v. Christmas, 101 N. C., 749 ; State v. Powell, 94 N. C., 965 ; State v. … C., 519 ; State v. White, 89 N. C., 462 ; Brown v. Kinsey, 81 N. C., 245 ; State v. Waller, 80 N. C., 401 ; State v. Patterson, 78 N. C., 470 ; State v. Allen, 48 N. C., 257 ; Sutton v. Madre, 47 N. C., 320 ; Cobb v.

Patillo v. . Lytle

158 N.C. 92 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1911

C., 482 ; Brown v. Coble, 76 N. C., 391 ; Mebane v. Mebane, 80 *97 N. C., 34; Latta v. Vickers, 82 N. C., 501 ; Foushee v. Durham, 84 N. C., 56 ; Miller v. Feezor, 82 N. C., 192 ; Attorney-General v. … Doyle v. Brown, 72 N. C., 393 ; Sumner v. Sessoms, 94 N. C., 377 . It is suggested that this is a consent decree.

State v. Daniels

231 N.C. 17 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 2, 1949

Brown, 53 N.C. 393 ; Lassiter v. Harper, 32 N.C. 392 ; Tyler v. Morris, 20 N.C. 625 ; Berry v. State, 22 Ind. 294 , 173 N.E. 705 , 72 A.L.R. 117 ; 3 Am. Jur., p. 766 , sec. 1276; see also, Hysler v. … State, 179 Wis. 646 , 192 N.W. 65 , 30 A.L.R. 681 , headnote 5; Roughton v. Brown, supra; 3 Am. Jur., supra, sec. 1276.

Howard v. Boyce

254 N.C. 255 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 22, 1961

Chavis v. Brown, 174 N.C. 122 , 93 S.E. 471 . … Chavis v. Brown, supra; Hatcher v. Faison, supra. A jury trial is not allowed as a matter of right, and a jury verdict would only be advisory in character. Chavis v. Brown, supra; Cleve v.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Tolson

176 N.C. App. 509 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 7, 2006

Co. v. Tolson, 174 N.C. … Shell Island Homeowners Ass’n v. Tomlinson, 134 N.C. App. 217, 226 , 517 S.E.2d 406, 413 (1999) (quoting Convent of Sisters of St. Joseph v. Winston-Salem, 243 N.C. 316, 324 , 90 S.E.2d 879, 885 (1956)).

Durham v. Cotton Mills.

141 N.C. 615 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 28, 1906

Goldsmith v. Turnbridge Wells Co., 1 Ch. App., 349. That case was reviewed at length and approved in Newark Aqueduct Board v. … State v. Griffin, 69 N. H., 1; City of Durango v. Chapman, 27 Colo., 169 ; Com. v. Russell, 172 Pa. St., 506; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass., 208 . This court has said in Brown v. Keener, 74 N.

In Re Will of Yelverton

198 N.C. 746 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 28, 1930

Gattis v. Kilgo, 131 N. C., 199 , 42 S. E., 584 . “When we can see that the appellant has been really injured by such action, we will always order a new trial” —Brown, J., in Parrott v. R. R., supra. … In re Will of Brown, 194 N. C., 583 , 140 S. E., 192 , at page 597.