{
  "id": 8547463,
  "name": "JANET LYNN TAYLOR McALISTER v. THOMAS RAY McALISTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "McAlister v. McAlister",
  "decision_date": "1972-03-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 7219DC103",
  "first_page": "159",
  "last_page": "161",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 159"
    }
  ],
  "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": "167 S.E. 2d 505",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 612",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555116
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/4/0612-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 137",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569823
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0067-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 854",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566020
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 P. 705",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1901,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 Cal. 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2004810
      ],
      "year": 1901,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/132/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 S.W. 2d 964",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10283413
      ],
      "year": 1930,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/32/0964-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 S.W. 2d 843",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10245504
      ],
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/118/0843-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 3585,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.582345157539456e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9476305375332693
    },
    "sha256": "fef66a14a42ad3fe3a759e972568d174aedfda7b0dd2c5a3e1fbe15e414dbad2",
    "simhash": "1:020a1c3fbc1d140a",
    "word_count": 614
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JANET LYNN TAYLOR McALISTER v. THOMAS RAY McALISTER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CAMPBELL, Judge.\nThe only issue raised in this Court is whether it was error for the trial judge to deny defendant\u2019s motion to have the record taken by an official court reporter.\nThe defendant argues that it was error to deny his motion for a reporter and that the absence of a reporter impaired his right of appeal.\nThe North Carolina General Statutes require only that \u201c [c] ourt-reporting personnel shall be utilized, if available, for the reporting of civil trials in the district court.\u201d G.S. 7A-198 (emphasis added). If a reporter is not available in any county, other means may be employed to take the testimony. Ibid. The defendant made no motion that any other means be employed when his motion for a court reporter was denied.\nThere are no cases on this point in North Carolina. Other jurisdictions have, however, held that it is not error for the trial judge to fail to appoint a stenographer to take down the testimony where no stenographer is available. Lindsey v. Caston, 118 S.W. 2d 843, Tex. Civ. App. (1938) ; Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Larremore, 32 S.W. 2d 964, Tex. Civ. App. (1930). If the case is one in which a court reporter\u2019s services can be dispensed with without prejudice, and no reporter can be found, it is not error to refuse a motion for the services of a reporter. 53 Am. Jur., Trial, \u00a7 30; Frost v. Witter, 132 Cal. 421, 64 P. 705 (1901).\nA hearing of this nature may be conducted on affidavits only and without oral testimony. Miller v. Miller, 270 N.C. 140, 153 S.E. 2d 854 (1967). Nevertheless, oral testimony was introduced in the instant case. Even so the absence of stenographic notes is not always fatal. State v. Sanders, 280 N.C. 67, 185 S.E. 2d 137 (1971); State v. Allen, 4 N.C. App. 612, 167 S.E. 2d 505 (1969).\nThe defendant has not shown any prejudice by the denial of his motion. A new trial will be granted only for prejudicial error. 1 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, \u00a7 47.\nIn the trial of this case we find\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CAMPBELL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Ottway Burton for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JANET LYNN TAYLOR McALISTER v. THOMAS RAY McALISTER\nNo. 7219DC103\n(Filed 29 March 1972)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 18 \u2014 subsistence pendente lite \u2014 hearing \u2014 denial of court reporter\nDefendant has shown no prejudice by the denial of his motion for an official court reporter to record the hearing in district court on plaintiff\u2019s motion for subsistence and counsel fees pendente lite.\nAppeal by defendant from Hammond, District Judge, 27 August 1971 Session of District Court held in Randolph County.\nThe plaintiff brought this civil action against her husband, the defendant, for alimony without a divorce, counsel fees, custody of the minor children of plaintiff and subsistence for the minor children, possession of a residence owned by plaintiff and defendant as tenants by the entirety, and possession of an automobile owned by defendant. In this proceeding she moved for similar relief pendente lite and a hearing was held on this motion.\nPrior to the introduction of any evidence at the hearing the defendant moved for an official court reporter to take the record and further moved for a continuance if a court reporter was not available. The trial judge denied both motions.\nThe matter was heard before the Judge on affidavit and the oral testimony of witnesses.\nThe trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded child support, alimony pendente lite, counsel fees, possession of the residence, and possession of the automobile.\nFrom the order of the trial court, the defendant appeals.\nNo counsel for plaintiff appellee.\nOttway Burton for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0159-01",
  "first_page_order": 185,
  "last_page_order": 187
}