{
  "id": 8550203,
  "name": "WILMAR, INCORPORATED v. HENRY M. ANDERSON, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilmar, Inc. v. Anderson",
  "decision_date": "1971-12-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7126SC621",
  "first_page": "80",
  "last_page": "80",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 80"
    }
  ],
  "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": "13 N.C. App. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550180
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/13/0071-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 112,
    "char_count": 1242,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.515,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530618580465502
    },
    "sha256": "7ddd54140d2d5ab169cc9ad0270d540c55f7ed56164603a104673429e439aaf8",
    "simhash": "1:e9db87fdfaa432b8",
    "word_count": 196
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WILMAR, INCORPORATED v. HENRY M. ANDERSON, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nThe questions raised by this appeal are identical to those raised in Wilmar, Incorporated v. Liles and Wilmar, Incorporated v. Polk, 13 N.C. App. 71 (1971). The facts vary only in the type of employment defendant had with plaintiff and the type of employment with plaintiff\u2019s competitor. This variance in facts is of no significance in the application of the principles of law discussed in Wilmar, Incorporated v. Liles and Wilmar, Incorporated v. Polk, supra. The principles are equally applicable here.\nFor the reasons stated in Wilmar, Incorporated v. Liles and Wilmar, Incorporated v. Polk, the judgment of the trial tribunal must be\nReversed.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Grier, Parker, Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage and Preston, by Mark R. Bernstein, Sydnor Thompson and W. Samuel Woodard, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "McElwee and Hall, by John E. Hall, and W. G. Mitchell for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILMAR, INCORPORATED v. HENRY M. ANDERSON, JR.\nNo. 7126SC621\n(Filed 15 December 1971)\nAppeal by defendant from Fountain, Judge, 10 May 1971 Session, Mecklenburg Superior Court.\nThis is an action seeking to enforce by injunction a covenant not to compete entered into between defendant as employee and plaintiff as employer.\nGrier, Parker, Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage and Preston, by Mark R. Bernstein, Sydnor Thompson and W. Samuel Woodard, for plaintiff appellee.\nMcElwee and Hall, by John E. Hall, and W. G. Mitchell for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0080-01",
  "first_page_order": 104,
  "last_page_order": 104
}