Case law

State v. Bell

48 N.C. App. 356 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 19, 1980

Defendant, however, correctly cites Gooding v. Pope, 194 N.C. 403 , 140 S.E. 21 (1927); Brown v. Buchanan, 194 N.C. 675 , 140 S.E. 749 (1927); Nicholsonv. Eureka Lumber Co., 156 N.C. 59 , 72 S.E. 86 (1911); Williams v. … In consideration of the rule that statutes must be construed to be in derogation of common law, we elect to reaffirm State v. Haltom in view of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(a). See, Brown v.

In re DeLancy

67 N.C. App. 647 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 17, 1984

Utilities Comm. v. Oil Co., 302 N.C. 14, 21 , 273 S.E. 2d 232, 236 (1981). The petition for judicial review filed by Ms. … Porter v. Dept. of Insurance, 40 N.C. App. 376 , 253 S.E. 2d 44 , disc. rev. denied, 297 N.C. 455 , 256 S.E. 2d 808 (1979).

Laughinghouse v. City of New Bern

232 N.C. 596 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 8, 1950

Person v. Doughton, 186 N.C. 723, 120 S.E. 481 ; White v. Commrs. of Johnston, 217 N.C. 329 , 7 S.E. 2d 702 ; Steele v. Cotton Mills, 231 N.C. 636 , 58 S.E. 2d 620 ; Hancock v. Bulla, post, 620. … See Riddle v. Ledbetter, 216 N.C. 491 , 5 S.E. 2d 542 .

Harleysville Ins. v. Buzz Off Insect

364 N.C. 128 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 2010

695 S.E.2d 759 (2010) HARLEYSVILLE INS. v. BUZZ OFF INSECT. No. 272A08. Supreme Court of North Carolina. April 14, 2010. David L. Brown, Greensboro, Grant S. Palmer, Philadelphia, PA, for Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co.

Liptrap v. Coyne

196 N.C. App. 739 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 5, 2009

Defendant, citing Montsinger v. … Defendant contends that this case is analogous to by Brown v. Ginn, 181 N.C.

Baqir v. Principi

288 F. Supp. 2d 706 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 11, 2003

See Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 825 , 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1964 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). … Brown, 425 U.S. at 835 , 96 S.Ct. at 1969 .

Ocean Hill Joint Venture v. Currituck

178 N.C. App. 182 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 20, 2006

Ligon v. Strickland, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 625 S.E.2d 824 , 827-28 (2006) (citing Martishius v. Carolco Studios, Inc., 355 N.C. 465 , 473, 562 S.E.2d 887 , 892 (2002) (quoting Taylor v. … See Murdock v.

Johnson v. . Commissioners

192 N.C. 561 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 17, 1926

These bonds have been issued and sold by the board, and the proceeds loaned to the commission, pursuant to the agreement, which is valid, and authorized by statute. Young v. … Edwards v. Goldsboro , 141 N.C. 60 .

Bartley v. City of High Point

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2020

Brown, 233 N.C. App. at 258-59, 756 S.E.2d at 751. … Brown v. Town of Chapel Hill, 233 N.C. App. 257, 264, 2  BARTLEY V.

State v. . Quick

150 N.C. 820 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 1, 1909

Brown, J. The defendant was tried for murder in the second degree and convicted of manslaughter. … For this position the learned counsel cite Stewart v. Carpet Co., 138 N. C., 60 , and Board of Education v. Makeley, 139 N. C., 31 , and insist that the rule upheld in those cases is applicable here.

Wade v. Town of Ayden

125 N.C. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 18, 1997

Our review of a decision on an application for a conditional use permit made by a town board requires that we insure that the “procedures specified by law in both statute and ordinance are followed.” Concrete Co. v. … Thus the Board was without authority to consider final approval of the conditional use permit request. See Signorelli v.

United States v. General

435 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 1, 2006

United States v. Brown, 401 F.3d 588, 592 (4th Cir.2005) (quotation omitted). “[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or another public place.” … Brown, 401 F.3d at 596 (quotations omitted).

Paynter v. Maggiolo

105 N.C. App. 312 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 4, 1992

In so holding the Blanton Court stated that its decision was a reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Kirkpatrick, 217 N.C. 486 , 8 S.E.2d 601 (1940). … The reasoning of Brown was rejected expressly by our Supreme Court in Barnaby v. Boardman, 313 N.C. 565 , 330 S.E.2d 600 (1985).

State v. Eubanks

283 N.C. 556 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 1, 1973

First, that such analysis shall be performed according to methods approved by the State Board of Health, and second, that such analysis be made by a person possessing a valid permit issued by the State Board of Health for … Officer Pegram had a valid permit issued by the Board to conduct such analysis and testified that he made the analysis in this case according to methods approved by that Board.

Justice v. Boone Fork Lumber Co.

181 N.C. 390 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 18, 1921

¥e have decided in several cases, and very recently in Brown v. Taylor, 173 N. C., 700 (citing Sondley v. Asheville, 112 N. … This case cannot be distinguished from Brown v.

Kiff v. . Weaver

94 N.C. 274 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1886

Jackson v. Love, supra, and Pate v. Brown, 85 N. C., 166 . … Redfield on Wills, Part II, 312, 313, and to same effect Brown v. Brown, 18 Conn., 410 ; Williams on Executors, 692; Iredell on Executors, 52.

State v. . Hodges

180 N.C. 751 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 24, 1920

The validity of such statute conferring power on the Board of Agriculture to make regulations within the purview of this section was upheld in S. v. R. R., 141 N. C., 846 , and S. v. Garner, 158 N. … S. v. Hay, 126 N. C., 999 ; Morgan v. Stewart, 144 N. C., 424 , and in other matters, S. v. Beacham, 125 N. C., 652 ; and in many other instances. Shelby v. Power Co., 155 N. C., 196 ; Durham v. Cotton Mills, 141 N.

State v. Messick

159 N.C. App. 232 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2003

No evidence was presented indicating defendant and Jack Brown acted in concert for a common criminal purpose. The majority cites two factually distinguishable cases, State v. … In the case sub judice, there is no evidence of a conspiracy or agreement between Jack Brown and defendant. [1] Accordingly, if the jury determined Jack Brown's actions were unforeseeable and that Jack Brown was the sole

Erthal v. May

223 N.C. App. 373 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 20, 2012

Hobby & Sons, Inc. v. … See A-S-P Associates v.

Watson v. Conagra Foods

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Mar 16, 2009

Margaret Brown, Plant Nurse, did not know of any other employees at defendant-employer's plant who had similar problems with their knees, or had made similar complaints as plaintiff has made. 5. … Rutledge v. Tultex Corp ., 308 N.C. 85 , 93 , 301 S.E.2 nd 359, 365 (1983). Booker v. Medical Center , 297 N.C. 458 , 256 S.E.2d 189 (1979).