Case law

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.

State v. Carter

283 N.C. 107 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 1973

194 S.E.2d 634 (1973) 283 N.C. 107 STATE of North Carolina v. Hazel CARTER and Robert Lee Hart. Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 6, 1973. Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen., Walter E. … Brown & Brown, for defendant Hart. Petition for writ of certiorari by defendants to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 17 N.C.App. 234 , 193 S.E.2d 281 . Denied.

Little v. City of Locust

83 N.C. App. 224 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1986

Practice and Procedure in Civil Cases Secs. 705, 706 (1929); Gidney v. Hallsey, 9 N.C. 550 (1823). The procedure devised was simple and expeditious and none of the statutes approving its use have changed it. … was inappropriate and treated the suit as a petition for certiorari Deffet Rentals, Inc. v.

Powell v. . Bladen County

206 N.C. 46 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 1934

Wilkinson v. Board of Education, 199 N. C., 669 ; Lacy v. Bank, 183 N. C., 373 . … Comr. of Revenue v. Realty Co., 204 N. C., 123 ; S. v. Harris, ibid., 422; Rutledge v. Fitzgerald, 197 N. C., 163 . Judgment Affirmed.

Matter of Bruce

103 N.C. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 21, 1991

While the Double Jeopardy Clause can apply to penalties or sanctions rendered in civil cases, as well as criminal, United States v. … United States v. WRW Corp., 731 F.Supp. 237 (E.D.

State v. Mills

39 N.C. App. 47 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1978

State v. Branch, 288 N.C. 514 , 220 S.E. 2d 495 (1975); State v. Cornell, 281 N.C. 20 , 187 S.E. 2d 768 (1972); State v. Fox, 277 N.C. 1 , 175 S.E. 2d 561 (1970). … State v. Sneeden, 274 N.C. 498 , 164 S.E. 2d 190 (1968).

In re the Petition of Central Telephone Company Concerning the Allocation Formula for Corporate Income Tax Purposes for the Year Ended December 31, 1991

167 N.C. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 16, 2004

Duke v. … In Coca-Cola Co. v.

Stegall v. New Hanover Zon. Bd. of Adj.

87 N.C. App. 359 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 20, 1987

Coastal Ready-Mix Concrete Co., Inc. v. … Godfrey v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 317 N.C. 51, 54-5 , 344 S.E. 2d 272, 274 (1986), quoting In re Campsites Unlimited, 287 N.C. 493, 498 , 215 S.E. 2d 73, 76 (1975).

Harris v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

230 N.C. 485 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 25, 1949

Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 217 N.C. 368 , 8 S.E. 2d 199 ; Fox v. Tea Co., 209 N.C. 115 , 182 S.E. 662 ; Sams v. Hotel Raleigh, 205 N.C. 758 , 172 *488 S.E. 371; Cooke v. … Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., supra; Anderson v. Amusement Co., 213 N.C. 130 , 195 S.E. 386 ; Parker v. Tea Co., supra; Bowden v. Kress, supra.

Parish v. East Coast Cedar Co.

133 N.C. 478 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 24, 1903

This act is apparently intended, at least by the draftsman, to evade the construction placed upon the old act by the eases of Phelps v. Chesson, 34 N. C., 194 , and Land Co. v. Board of Education, 101 N. C., 35 . … In Land Co. v. Board of Education, 101 N.

Graham v. Mock

143 N.C. App. 315 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2001

Hall v. Board of Elections, 280 N.C. 600, 605 , 187 S.E.2d 52, 55 (1972). … Sneed v. Board of Education, 299 N.C. 609, 618 , 264 S.E.2d 106, 113 (1980) (citations omitted).

The Estate of Nathan Richard Coppick v. Hobbs Marina Properties, LLC

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 7, 2015

Stat. § 87- 10(b) (2013) (“Application for license [for General Contractors]” “(b) The Board shall conduct an examination . . . of all applicants for license to ascertain . . . … As defendant concedes, our Supreme Court previously addressed this issue in Brown v. Flowe, 349 N.C. 520, 507 S.E.2d 894 (1998).

Matter of Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp.

113 N.C. App. 562 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 15, 1994

App. 335, 341 , 339 S.E.2d 681, 685 (1986) (quoting Thompson v. Wake County Board of Education, 292 N.C. 406, 414 , *571 233 S.E.2d 538, 544 (1977)). … Rainbow Springs Partnership v. County of Macon, 79 N.C. App. 335, 341 , 339 S.E.2d 681, 685 (1986) (quoting Thompson v. Wake County Board of Education, 292 N.C. 406, 410 , 233 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1977)).

In re: Lowe's Home Ctrs.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 7, 2020

Lowe’s concludes, “[g]iven that the Board did not even discuss Section 105-287 or the Union County [S]chedule of [V]alues, the Commission properly concluded that the Board did not intend to ‘correct an appraisal error … resulting from a misapplication’ of the [S]chedule of [V]alues” at the time of the 2017 Revaluation.

Gwinn v. . Parker

119 N.C. 19 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1896

Code, Sec. 274; Gilchrist v. Kitchen, 86 N. C., 20 ; Brown v. Hale, 93 N. C., 188 . No Error.

Burton v. . Belvin

142 N.C. 150 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 25, 1906

Brown v. Kinsey , 81 N.C. 245 , and cases there cited. … Brown v. Kinsey, supra , is exactly in point. Corbett v. Clute , 137 N.C. 546 , which holds that a bond given as consideration for the suppression of a criminal prosecution is null and void, has no application.

State v. . Mangum

187 N.C. 477 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 26, 1924

S. v. Dixon, 114 N. C., 850 ; S. v. Lilly, 116 N. C., 1049 ; S. v. Reams, 121 N. C., 556 ; S. v. Brown, 125 N. C., 704 ; S. v. Woodlief, 172 N. C., 887 . … C., 748 ; S. v. Brown, 125 N. C., 704 . The above cases show that one of the mischiefs intended to be remedied is the practice of carrying concealed weapons, to be used on an emergency. Justice Ashe said, in S. 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 ; In re Appeal of Parker, 214 N.C. 51 , 197 S.E. 706 ; Elizabeth City v. … County, and that tbe Board of Commissioners shall act as a board of adjustment.

Gaskill v. Costlow

270 N.C. 686 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 20, 1967

Lamb v. Board of Education, 235 N.C. 377 , 70 S.E. 2d 201 ; Idol v. Street, 233 N.C. 730 , 65 S.E. 2d 313 ; Board of Health v. Comrs. of Nash, 220 N.C. 140 , 16 S.E. 2d 677 ; Sams v. … Leavell v. Town of Texico, supra, is cited with approval in City and County of Denver v. Board of County Comr’s., 141 Colo. 102 , 347 P. 2d 132 . The statute under consideration in Hite v.

Jenkins v. City Coach Co.

231 N.C. 208 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 30, 1949

Brown v. Truck Lines, 229 N.C. 122 , 47 S.E. 2d 711 . Moreover, it compels the conclusion that he was keeping a vigilant lookout for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction. … He has the right to assume under such circumstances that the approaching automobile will remain on its own side of the road until the vehicles meet and pass in safety, Brown v.