Case law

Lucas v. . Belhaven

175 N.C. 124 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 20, 1918

It was a matter which rested in the discretion of the former board to pass such resolution, Broadnax v. … Cited: Board of Education v. Commissioners , 189 N.C. 652 .

Williams v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Sch. Bd. of Educ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 20, 2024

TA-29098 JERMOND WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. … On 15 August 2022, the Board timely appealed to this Court. On 17 October 2023, we issued an opinion, Williams v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Board of Education, ___ N.C.

Boone v. Buncombe County Board of Education for Buncombe County Schools

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 8, 2023

See, e.g., Miles v. … The Board had no notice during the EEOC administrative process that Plaintiff would subsequently claim the Board forced her to retire. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v.

Burney v. Berryhill

276 F. Supp. 3d 496 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 2017

See Hill v. … See Herrmann v.

North Carolina Railroad v. Commissioners of Alamance

82 N.C. 259 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1880

R. v. Com’rs Brunswick, 72 N. C., 10 ; Bridge Co. v. Com’rs New Hanover, Ibid, 15. See also R. & D. R. R. Co. v. Brogden, 74 N. C., 707 to the same effect. In the R. & R. R. Co. v. Com’rs of Orange, 74 N. … Hinton v. Hinton, Phil., 410.

K.H. v. Dixon

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 1, 2024

V. … V.

State v. Rose

170 N.C. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2005

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50 , 61 L. Ed. 2d 357, 361 , 99 S. … Brown, 443 U.S. at 51 , 61 L. Ed. 2d at 362 , 99 S.

Jones v. . Casstevens

222 N.C. 411 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 16, 1942

Brown on Parol Evidence, 117; Bank v. Winslow, 193 N. C., 470 , 137 S. E., 320 ; Typewriter Co. v. Hardware Co., 143 N. C., 97 , 55 S. E., 417 . In Evans v. Freeman, 142 N. C., 61 , 54 S. … Brown v. Kirkpatrick, 217 N. C., 486 , 8 S. E. (2d), 601 . The rights of the parties are to be determined by the stipulation appearing on the face of the note.

Barr-Mullin, Inc. v. Browning

108 N.C. App. 590 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 8, 1993

Q-CO Industries, Inc. v. Hoffman, 625 F.Supp. at 617 . Defendants next argue the COMPU-RIP software was not a trade secret since defendant Browning rediscovered the COMPU-RIP source code by means of reverse engineering. … Here, a prima facie case of misappropriation exists since defendant Browning helped to develop the COMPU-RIP software during his employ with plaintiff and Browning had access to copies of the COMPU-RIP source code prior to

Ryals v. Carolina Contracting Co.

219 N.C. 479 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 7, 1941

E., *483 471 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 190 N. C., 819 , 130 S. E., 834 ; Watson v. Tanning Co., 190 N. C., 840 , 130 S. E., 833 ; Williams v. Coach Co., 197 N. C., 12 , 147 S. E., 435 ; Spencer v. Brown, 214 N. … Nichols v. Fibre Co., supra; Williams v. Coach Co., supra; Spencer v. Brown, supra; Mack v. Marshall Field & Co., supra. In S. v.

Boone v. Buncombe County Board of Education for Buncombe County Schools

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 16, 2023

Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Fawzy v. … .’”); Colin v.

COLONIAL BLDG. CO., INC. v. Justice

83 N.C. App. 643 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 30, 1986

Warren Brothers Co. v. N.C. Dept. of Transportation, 64 N.C. App. 598 , 307 S.E. 2d 836 (1983). In such a case plaintiffs claim is said to be insurmountably barred. Id. … Brown signed contains the following provisions: “The date of closing shall be within 60 days from the effective date of this agreement.

Massie v. . Hainey

165 N.C. 174 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 18, 1914

Rackley v. Roberts, 147 N. C., 201 ; Flowers v. King, *179 145 N. C., 234 ; Grant v. Harrell, 109 N. C., 78 ; Sutton Schonwald, 86 N. C., 198 ; Yeargin v. Wood, 84 N. C., 326 ; Doyle v. Brown, 72 N. … In Doyle v.

Walker v. . Walker

60 N.C. 255 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1864

That such evidence is *Page 159 admissible for such purposes was directly decided by this Court, in Brown v. Brown , 49 N.C. 123 . … Calvert , 83 N.C. 371 ; Cheatham v. Rowland , 105 N.C. 222 ; Patton v. Garrett , 116 N.C. 858 ; Millinery Co. v. Ins. Co. , 160 N.C. 141 . *Page 160

Cox v. Hancock

160 N.C. App. 473 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 7, 2003

See Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C. 458, 464-65 , 202 S.E.2d 129, 134 (1974). … Board of Adjustment, 260 N.C. 426 , 132 S.E.2d 758 (1963) (per curiam) and Baker v. Town of Rose Hill, 126 N.C. App. 338 , 485 S.E.2d 78 (1997).

State v. Wilkins

208 N.C. App. 729 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 21, 2010

Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 566 , 313 S.E.2d 585, 587 (1984). “[E]vidence is deemed less than substantial if it raises no more than mere suspicion or conjecture as to the defendant’s guilt.” State v. … State v. Williams, 71 N.C.

State v. King

256 N.C. 236 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 12, 1962

S. v. Brown, 81 N.C. 568 ; S. v. Ewing, 127 N.C. 555 , 37 S.E. 332 ; S. v. Ledford, 203 N.C. 724 , 166 S.E. 917 It was further said in S. v. … S. v. Colson, supra.

State v. Davis

92 N.C. App. 627 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1989

State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 569 , 313 S.E. 2d 585, 589 (1984). … State v.

Gannett Pacific Corp. v. City of Asheville

178 N.C. App. 711 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 1, 2006

Shear v. Stevens Bldg. Co., 107 N.C. App. 154, 160 , 418 S.E.2d 841, 845 (1992). If supported by competent evidence, the trial court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal. Finch v. Wachovia Bank & Tr. … In Multimedia Pub’g of N.C., Inc. v. Henderson Cty., 145 N.C.

CHAPEL HILL TITLE & ABSTRACT CO. v. Town of Chapel Hill

362 N.C. 649 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 2008

Chapel Hill Title & Abstract Co., Inc. v. Town of Chapel Hill, 190 N.C. App. -, -, 660 S.E.2d 667, 673 (2008). Based on the dissent in the Court of Appeals, petitioners appealed to this Court. … We therefore conclude that the Board erred by denying petitioners’ request for a variance.