G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1923 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1923
1974
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Tate
The reversal of the conviction in Gibson was “based on the assertion, not that there is no proof of a crime having been committed, but that there is none which tends to prove that the particular offense charged in the bill has been committed.” Gibson, 169 N.C. at 385 , 85 S.E. at 9 (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wright
The item must be described with ‘reasonable certainty’ and ‘by the name or term usually employed to describe it.’” Id. at 752 , 781 S.E.2d at 644 (quoting State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 318 , 85 S.E. 7, 8 (1915)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wright
The item must be described with ‘reasonable certainty’ and ‘by the name or term usually employed to describe it.’” Id. at 752 , 781 S.E.2d at 644 (quoting State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 318 , 85 S.E. 7, 8 (1915)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wright
The item must be described with ‘reasonable certainty’ and ‘by the name or term usually employed to describe it.’” Id. at 752 , 781 S.E.2d at 644 (quoting State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 318 , 85 S.E. 7, 8 (1915)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jones
Additionally, “[i]t is the general rule that the thing obtained by the false pretense ... must be described with reasonable certainty, and by the name or term usually employed to describe it.” State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 380, 383 , 169 N.C. 318, 320 , 85 S.E. 7, 8 (1915) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jones
Additionally, “[i]t is the general rule that the thing obtained by the false pretense . . . must be described with reasonable certainty, and by the name or term usually employed to describe it.” State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 380, 383 , 169 N.C. 318, 320 , 85 S.E. 7, 8 (1915) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jones
State v. Smith, 219 N.C. 400, 401 , 14 S.E.2d 36, 36-37 (1941) (citations and quotation marks omitted) (holding that an indictment charging a defendant with obtaining money by false pretenses should describe the money by the amount); State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 380, 383 ( 169 N.C. 318 ), 85 S.E. 7, 8 (1915) (holding that a promissory note must be described as such and not as money); State v. Reese, 83 N.C. 637, 639 (1880) (holding that indictments for obtaining property by false pretenses should describe goods by the usual name and money in “dollars and cents”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Downs
App. 327, 334 , 536 S.E.2d 630, 635 (2000) (quoting State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 318, 320 , 85 S.E. 7, 8 (1915)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ledwell
App. 327, 334 , 536 S.E.2d 630, 635 (2000) (quoting State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 381, 383 , 85 S.E. 7, 8 (1915)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Morris
(2×)
In other words, the proof does not fit the allegation." State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 318, 322 , 85 S.E. 7, 9 (1915).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Walston
“It is an elementary rule in the criminal law that a defendant must be convicted, if at all, of the particular offense alleged in the bill of indictment.” State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 318, 320 , 85 S.E. 7, 8 (1915).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Pulliam
(2×)
It challenges the right of the State to a verdict upon its own showing, and asks that the court, without submitting the case to the jury, decide, as a matter of law, that the State has failed in its proof.” Id. at 104 , 40 S.E. 2d at 700 , quoting State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 318, 322 , 85 S.E. 7, 9 (1915).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mostafavi
See State v. Gibson , 169 N.C. 318 , 320, 85 S.E. 7 , 9 (1915) (defining "money" as "any lawful currency, whether coin or paper, issued by the Government as a medium of exchange").
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ricks
See State v. Gibson, 169 N.C. 318 , 320, 85 S.E. 7 , 9 (1915) (defining "money" as "any lawful currency, whether coin or paper, issued by the Government as a medium of exchange").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Helen Mowery
v.
M. W. Mowery.
v.
M. W. Mowery.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Apr 28, 1915.
Robinson, Caudle & Pruette for plaintiff.
,
H. II. McLendon, John W. Gulledige for defendant.
OuriaM.
Published
PER OuriaM.
Tbe only assignment of error set out in tbe record is in these words: “Tbe defendant assigned as error tbe judgment rendered herein.” It is contended by the defendant tbat tbe affidavits and evidence offered upon tbe motion for alimony are insufficient to support tbe findings of fact made by tbe judge.
• No sucb assignment of error is set out in tbe record. If tbe appellant desired to present sucb a contention, be should have assigned bis error by pointing out tbe particular finding of fact which is not supported by tbe evidence.
Nevertheless, we have examined tbe affidavits, and find tbat bis Honor’s findings were fully sustained, and they warrant tbe order allowing alimony to tbe plaintiff pendente lite.
Affirmed.