Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 265 S.E.2d 189 (N.C. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 265 S.E.2d 189 (N.C. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
184 citation events (106 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Israel v. Zachary (ncctapp, 2026-03-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Israel v. Zachary
N.C. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
“Conclusions of law drawn by the trial court from its findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal.” Carolina Power & Light Co. v. City of Asheville, 358 N.C. 512, 517 , 597 S.E.2d 717, 721 (2004) (italics omitted) (citing Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Read v. Read
N.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bottoms Towing & Recovery, LLC v. Circle of Seven
N.C. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
App. 331, 335 , 645 S.E.2d 187, 190 (2007) (citing Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bottoms Towing & Recovery, LLC v. Circle of Seven
N.C. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
App. 331, 335 , 645 S.E.2d 187, 190 (2007) (citing Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gribble v. Bostian
N.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
“Conclusions of law drawn by the trial judge from the findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal.” Humphries v. Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gribble v. Bostian
N.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
“Conclusions of law drawn by the trial judge from the findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal.” Humphries v. Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Caroline-A-Contracting, LLC v. J. Scott Campbell Constr. Co.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
ANALYSIS ¶ 13 On appeal, we are bound by the facts found by the trial court if they are supported by the evidence, Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980), and we review a trial court’s conclusions of law de novo, Hairston v. Harward, 371 N.C. 647, 656 , 821 S.E.2d 384, 391 (2018). ¶ 14 The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by treating the payments from Mr. Mendoza as a collateral source, and consequently denying a credit to CAC.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Caroline-A-Contracting, LLC v. J. Scott Campbell Constr. Co.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
ANALYSIS ¶ 13 On appeal, we are bound by the facts found by the trial court if they are supported by the evidence, Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980), and we review a trial court’s conclusions of law de novo, Hairston v. Harward, 371 N.C. 647, 656 , 821 S.E.2d 384, 391 (2018). ¶ 14 The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by treating the payments from Mr. Mendoza as a collateral source, and consequently denying a credit to CAC.
cited Cited as authority (rule) North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Cromartie
N.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
“Conclusions of law drawn by the trial court from its findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal.” Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980). 2.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Songwooyarn Trading Co. v. Sox Eleven, Inc.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scarborough v. Dillard's, Inc. (2×)
N.C. · 2009 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980) (citing, inter alia, Food Town Stores, Inc. v. City of Salisbury, 300 N.C. 21 , 265 S.E.2d 123 (1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hoke County Board of Education v. State (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
"Conclusions of law drawn by the trial judge... are reviewable de novo on appeal." Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Williams
N.C. · 2008 · confidence medium
“Conclusions of law drawn by the trial court from its findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal.” Carolina Power & Light Co. v. City of Asheville, 358 N.C. 512, 517 , 597 S.E.2d 717, 721 (2004) (citing Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United Leasing Corp. v. Guthrie
N.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980). 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shepard v. Bonita Vista Properties, LP (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pegg v. Jones (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Simon
unknown court · 2007 · confidence medium
App. 331, 335 , 645 S.E.2d 187 ,-(2007) (citing Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980)). *251 Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in finding him in criminal contempt of court, on the grounds that “[n] either Judge Albright’s June 23, 2006 oral directive for the defendant to comply with Judge Spivey’s prior order nor Judge Spivey’s May 11, 2006 order were ever reduced to writing, signed by the judge nor filed with the clerk[.]” Defendant asserts that one cannot be held in criminal contempt of court unless he violates a formal wr…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ball v. Maynard
N.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Terry's Floor Fashions, Inc. v. Crown General Contractors, Inc. (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kraft v. Town of Mt. Olive
N.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Curran v. Barefoot
N.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Business Cabling, Inc. v. Yokeley
N.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frances L. Austin Family Ltd. Partnership v. City of High Point
N.C. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
III.Standard of Review “Conclusions of law drawn by the trial court from its findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal.” Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hayes v. Town of Fairmont
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Currituck Associates—Residential Partnership v. Hollowell (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Likewise, "[t]he conclusions of law drawn by the trial court from its findings of fact are fully reviewable de novo by the appellate court." Mann Contr'rs, Inc. v. Flair With Goldsmith Consultants-II, Inc., 135 N.C.App. 772, 775 , 522 S.E.2d 118, 121 (1999) (citing Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carolina Power & Light Co. v. City of Asheville
N.C. · 2004 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Briggs v. City of Asheville
N.C. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
“On appeal, the findings of fact made below are binding on this Court if supported by the evidence, even where there may be evidence to the contrary.” Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ridgefield Properties, L.L.C. v. City of Asheville (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
App. 254, 255 , 326 S.E.2d 376, 377 (1985) “On appeal, the findings of fact made below are binding on this Court if supported by the evidence, even when there may be evidence to the contrary.” Humphries v. Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. Town of Oak Island (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Douglas v. McVicker
N.C. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Arquilla v. City of Salisbury
N.C. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980) (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Concrete MacHinery Co. v. City of Hickory
N.C. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
“Conclusions of law drawn by the trial court from its findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal.” Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mark IV Beverage, Inc. v. Molson Breweries USA, Inc.
N.C. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
App. 359, 362 , 313 S.E.2d 253, 256 (1984) (quoting Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186,187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sullivan v. Bright
N.C. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bicket v. McLean Securities, Inc.
N.C. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Jur. 2d Contracts § 339 (1991); Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Weeks v. Town of Coats
N.C. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Asheville Industries, Inc. v. City of Asheville
N.C. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186 , *719 187, 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Prime South Homes, Inc. v. Byrd
N.C. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
“On appeal, the findings of fact made below are binding on this court if supported by the evidence, even when there may be evidence to the contrary.” Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thrash v. City of Asheville
N.C. · 1990 · confidence medium
Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nc Reinsurance Fac. v. Nc Ins. Guar.
N.C. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
Full appellate review is therefore appropriate, and the conclusions of law "are reviewable de novo." Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) North Carolina Reinsurance Facility v. North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Ass'n
N.C. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
Full appellate review is therefore appropriate, and the conclusions of law “are reviewable de novo. ” Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E. 2d 189, 190 (1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Annexation Ordinance D-21927 Adopted by City of Winston-Salem
N.C. · 1981 · confidence medium
Id.; Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186 , 265 S.E. 2d 189 *230 (1980); Food Town Stores v. City of Salisbury, 300 N.C. 21 , 265 S.E. 2d 123 (1980).
discussed Cited "see" Thompson v. Union Cnty.
N.C. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186 , 188–91 (1980) (holding that petitioners must show by competent evidence both statutory noncompliance and resulting material prejudice).
discussed Cited "see" Register v. White (2×)
N.C. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186 , 187, 265 S.E.2d 189 , 190(1980); Parker v. State Capital Life Ins.
discussed Cited "see" Register v. White (2×)
N.C. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980); Parker v. State Capital Life Ins.
examined Cited "see" In Re Byrd Ex Rel. Adoption of Byrd (4×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Humphries v. City of Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 187 , 265 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1980) (holding that if the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence, they are binding on appeal even though there may be evidence to the contrary).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Holloway v. Holloway (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
When we review an order from a non-jury trial, “we are ‘strictly limited to determining whether the trial judge’s underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the judge’s ultimate conclusions of law.’ ” State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628, 632 , 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (quoting State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134 , 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982)); see also Sisk v. Transylvania Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 364 N.C. 172, 179 , 695 S.E.2d 429, 434 (2010) (“[Findings of fact …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RAY HUMPHRIES, JR.; C. KNOX COUNCIL; TOMMY O. HOLMES and SHIRLEY HOLMES; IVAN N. REINER and JUNSUN REINER; JOE CORBIN and MARY LOU CORBIN; JAMES R. WILLIAMS and ALBERTA WILLIAMS; SYLVESTER HOWARD and CORNELIUS HOWARD; CHARLES E. LABBY, JR.; LESTER MAY; CHARLES W. COUNTS and THELMA COUNTS; NOEL ROGERS and DIANE ROGERS; MELVIN VOIGHT and GLORIA VOIGHT; GEORGE G. PATRICK; ADA LASSITER and RICHARD LASSITER, on Behalf of Himself and as President of the Brynn Marr/College Park Citizens Association, on Behalf of All Members of the Brynn Marr/College Park Citizens Association, an Association of Residents Opposing Annexation Into the City of Jacksonville
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA; W. BRUCE TEACHEY; A. D. GUY; GEORGE L. JONES; M. C. CHOATE; JOE T. MORGAN; And JAMES L. PENNINGTON
55.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 6, 1980.
265 S.E.2d 189
Burney, Burney, Barefoot & Bain by Michael R. Mitwol for pe titioner-appe Hants. , Warlick, Milsted, Dotson & McGlaughon by Marshall F. Dotson, Jr. for respondent-appellees.
Copeland.
Cited by 81 opinions  |  Published
COPELAND, Justice.

G.S. 160A-38(h), as amended in 1977, provides that the appeal in annexation cases involving cities of less than 5,000 people is to the Court of Appeals. G.S. 160A-50(h) presently provides that the appeal in annexation cases involving cities of 5,000 or more people is to this Court. Therefore, petitioners properly appealed directly to this Court.

Review in the superior court and appeal to the appellate division in annexation cases are governed by G.S. 160A-50. G.S. 160A-50(f)(2) allows the petitioner to present evidence to show that the provisions of G.S. 160A-47 have not been met. Specifically, petitioners complain that the provisions of subsection (1) a, b and c of section 47 have not been met. That statute provides that a map or maps must be included in the annexation report showing the following information:

“a. The present and proposed boundaries of the municipality.
b. The present major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, and the proposed extensions of such mains and outfalls as required in subdivision (3) of this section.
c. The general land use pattern in the area to be annexed.” G.S. 160A-47G).

On appeal, the findings of fact made below are binding on this Court if supported by the evidence, even when there may be evidence to the contrary. In re Annexation Ordinance, 296 N.C. 1, 249 S.E. 2d 698 (1978). Conclusions of law drawn by the trial judge from the findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal. Food [*188] Town Stores, Inc. v. City of Salisbury, 300 N.C. 21, 265 S.E. 2d 123 (1980); Harrelson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 272 N.C. 603, 158 S.E. 2d 812 (1968).

Our inquiry is whether petitioners have met their burden of showing by competent and substantial evidence that respondent did not comply with this statute. In re Annexation Ordinance, supra. Although petitioners have evidence in the record to the contrary, there is evidence to support the trial judge’s findings that the maps substantially comply with the requirements of this statute. The entire present boundaries of the City of Jacksonville are not shown on any map in the record. However, we need not reach the issue of whether G.S. 160A-47(1) a. requires that the entire present city boundaries be shown for two reasons. First, one of the reasons a map is needed is to determine whether the contiguity requirements of G.S. 160A-48(b)(l) and (2) have been met. Petitioners stipulated that all of the requirements of G.S. 160A-48 have been fully met. Second, petitioners cannot show that they have been prejudiced or have suffered material injury due to this alleged noncompliance. Therefore, the error, if any, does not constitute reversible error. There is evidence to support the finding that “the petitioners have failed to show by competent evidence that they have suffered material injury by reason of any failure of the City of Jacksonville to comply with the procedures set forth in the statutes or any failure of the respondent to meet the requirements set forth in G.S. 160A-47 or G.S. 160A-48 or that there was any irregularity in the proceedings which materially prejudiced the substantive rights of the petitioners.” This assignment of error is overruled.

Petitioners contend that under G.S. 160A-50(f)(l) they can present evidence that the requirements of G.S. 160A-45 (declarations of policy) have not been met. Their argument is that the spirit and intent of the policies enumerated in subsections (1) — (4) of G.S. 160A-45 have been violated because Pickettown, a small, Black residential area with no sewer services, has not been annexed by the respondent. This assignment of error is without merit for two reasons.

First, it is true that the annexing authority must comply with the requirements of Part 3 of Chapter 160A which includes G.S. 160A-45 through 50. In re Annexation Ordinance, supra. [*189] However, the provisions of G.S. 160A-45 are merely statements of policy. No procedural steps, substantive rights, or annexation requirements are contained in that statute. The policies enumerated there are aids for statutory interpretation when other sections of part 3 of Chapter 160A are in need of clarification, definition, and interpretation.

For example, subsection (1) of G.S. 160A-45 states as a matter of policy that “sound urban development is essential to the continued economic development of North Carolina.” The other provisions of part 3 of Chapter 160A then prescribe what must be done in order to annex an area. When G.S. 160A-47, 48 and 49 have been followed, then sound economic development has occurred because these statutes were enacted to implement and effectuate the intent and policies of the legislature that are enumerated in G.S. 160A-45. We have held above that G.S. 160A-47 was followed and petitioners have stipulated that the requirements of G.S. 160A-48 and 49(a) — (e) have been met with respect to the annexation of the Brynn Marr/College Park Area.

As discussed above, G.S. 160A-50(f)(2) allows a petitioner to present evidence that the requirements of G.S. 160A-47 (prerequisites to annexation; ability to serve; report and plans) have not been met. G.S. 160A-50(f)(3) allows a petitioner to present evidence that the requirements of G.S. 160A-48 (character of area to be annexed) have not been met. G.S. 160A-50(f)(l) allows a petitioner to present evidence that “the statutory procedure was not followed.” The primary statute prescribing the exact procedure for annexation is G.S. 160A-49 (procedure for annexation) and petitioners have stipulated that the respondent has fully complied with the requirements of G.S. 160A-49(a) — (e).

Second, the residents of this area do not argue that they are themselves suffering material injury or prejudice. They are asserting that there has been injury to the residents of Pickettown due to a discriminatory annexation policy. This they lack standing to do, see, Worth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 45 L.Ed. 2d 343, 95 S.Ct. 2197 (1975) (no self-injury or justification to allow standing to enforce the rights of others), and such a cause of action, if any, does not lie in a petition to review an annexation ordinance. This assignment of error is overruled.

[*190] The stay of annexation is dissolved and the judgment of the trial judge is

Affirmed.