{
  "id": 8553757,
  "name": "AMMIE ROSS McCONNELL v. CARY JONES McCONNELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "McConnell v. McConnell",
  "decision_date": "1971-04-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 7126DC253",
  "first_page": "193",
  "last_page": "194",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 193"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 654",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553258
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 690",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 1879,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059728192647525
    },
    "sha256": "8a57803cbf95b21863299537ed05e1daf625baa5f526b2e130a2600c53011908",
    "simhash": "1:82b33198cec52eea",
    "word_count": 313
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:46.806740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "AMMIE ROSS McCONNELL v. CARY JONES McCONNELL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nThe purported record on appeal filed in this case does not comply with the Rules of the Court of Appeals. Among other things, the evidence introduced at the hearing is not set forth in narrative form. Plaintiff filed what purports to be a stenographic transcript of the testimony supposedly in compliance with our original Rule 19(d) (2), but Rule 19(d) was amended by the Supreme Court on 11 February 1969, the amendment becoming effective on 1 July 1969. 2 N.C. App. 690. The amendment provides that the \u201cevidence in case on appeal shall be in narrative form\u201d and that the stenographic transcript of the evidence may not be used as an alternative to narration of the evidence. For failure to comply with the Rules, plaintiff\u2019s appeal is, ex mero motu, dismissed. Crosby v. Crosby, 1 N.C. App. 398, 161 S.E. 2d 654 (1968).\nNevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the record on appeal as filed and conclude that the trial court\u2019s order is fully supported by the findings of fact, which findings are amply supported by competent evidence.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Campbell and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gene H. Kendall for plaintiff appellant.",
      "J. C. Sedberry for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "AMMIE ROSS McCONNELL v. CARY JONES McCONNELL\nNo. 7126DC253\n(Filed 28 April 1971)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 41 \u2014 narration of evidence on appeal\nAppeal is dismissed for failure of appellant to state the evidence in narrative form. Rule of Practice in the Court of Appeals No. 19(d).\nAppeal by plaintiff from Gatling, District Judge, 14 January 1971 Session, Mecklenburg District Court.\nThis is an action for temporary and permanent alimony and counsel fees pursuant to G.S. 50-16.1 et seq. Following a hearing on plaintiff\u2019s motion for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees1, the court entered an order in which it found facts in favor of defendant and denied plaintiff\u2019s motion. Plaintiff appealed.\nGene H. Kendall for plaintiff appellant.\nJ. C. Sedberry for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0193-01",
  "first_page_order": 217,
  "last_page_order": 218
}