Carter v. . Bailey, 20 S.E.2d 58 (N.C. 1942). · Go Syfert
Search
Carter v. . Bailey, 20 S.E.2d 58 (N.C. 1942). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Lanford (ncctapp, 2013-01-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1914 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1914 1970 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Lanford
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 278, 290 , 20 S.E.2d 313, 320 (1942) (“It is clear, then, that the word ‘aforethought’ cannot be held to import into the definition the element of premeditation or deliberation.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Buchanan
N.C. · 1975 · signal: accord · confidence high
As used in C.S., 4200, now G.S. 14-17, the term premeditation and deliberation is more comprehensive and embraces all that is meant by aforethought, and more.’ State v. Hightower, 226 N.C. 62, 64 , 36 S.E. 2d 649, 650 (emphasis added) ; accord, State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 278 , 20 S.E. 2d 313 ; State v. Pihe, 49 N.H. 399 ; 6.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Buchanan
N.C. · 1975 · signal: accord · confidence high
As used in C.S., 4200, now G.S. 14-17, the term premeditation and deliberation is more comprehensive and embraces all that is meant by aforethought, and more.' State v. Hightower, 226 N.C. 62, 64 , 36 S.E.2d 649, 650 (emphasis added); accord, State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 278 , 20 S.E.2d 313 ; State v. Pike, 49 N.H. 399 , 6 Am.Rep. 533 ." Id. at 657 , 174 S.E.2d at 803-04 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Benton
N.C. · 1970 · signal: accord · confidence high
As used in C.S., 4200, now G.S. 14-17, the term premeditation and deliberation is more comprehensive and embraces all that is meant by aforethought, and more.” State v. Hightower, 226 N.C. 62, 64 , 36 S.E. 2d 649, 650 (emphasis added); accord, State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 278 , 20 S.E. 2d 313 ; State v. Pike, 49 N.H. 399 ; 6 Am.
cited Cited "see" State v. Howard
N.C. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See the discussion of the problem in State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 278 , 20 S.E. 2d 318 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Henderson
N.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although defendant contends there is no such field of expertise entitled “child disclosure,” our Supreme Court has explained that “[r]egardless of the professional label, it is for the court to say whether the witness is qualified to testify as one skilled in the matter at issue, and his finding will not be disturbed when there is evidence to support it, and the discretion has not been abused.” Bullard, 312 N.C. at 144 , 322 S.E.2d at 378 (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158, 164 , 95 S.E.2d 548, 552 (1956)); see also State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 278, 287 , 20 S.E.2d 313,…
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Moore
N.C. · 1956 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also S. v. Smith, 221 N.C. 278 , 20 S.E. 2d 313 ; In re Humphrey, 236 N.C. 142 , 71 S.E. 2d 915 ; Samet v. Ins.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fred Carter, by His Next Friend, F. O. Carter
v.
Wayne Bailey.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 6, 1942.
20 S.E.2d 58
E. M. Toon and Varser, McIntyre Henry for plaintiff, appellant . A. B. Brady and Tucker Proctor for defendant, appellee .
PER CURIAM..
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Civil action to recover for personal injuries allegedly received by plaintiff while in act of boarding a moving truck of defendant resulting from actionable negligence of employee of defendant. Defendant denies (1) authority of his employee to invite plaintiff to ride, and (2) negligence of his employee in operation of truck, and pleads contributory negligence of plaintiff.

From judgment as of nonsuit at close of all the evidence plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error. If it should be conceded that there is evidence of negligence, and of authority of the employee of defendant, Hayes v. Creamery Co., 195 N.C. 113,141 S.E. 340, plaintiff, by his own testimony, brings himself within the general applicable rule that passengers who are injured while attempting to get on or off a moving train cannot recover for injury.Browne v. R. R., 108 N.C. 34, 12 S.E. 958; Carter v. R. R., 165 N.C. 244,81 S.E. 321; Stamey v. R. R., 208 N.C. 668, 182 S.E. 130;Wingate v. R. R., 220 N.C. 251, 17 S.E.2d 6.

Affirmed.