{
  "id": 8548932,
  "name": "ELVA WALKER RENO v. WILLIAM H. ROGERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Reno v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1972-04-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 7227DC346",
  "first_page": "286",
  "last_page": "287",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 286"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 112,
    "char_count": 1445,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "f1e102dcbf5f0c1fc6d25345626b8c96f2b4baacb6add451e91d6f286b7b7509",
    "simhash": "1:56ea6552c65db753",
    "word_count": 225
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ELVA WALKER RENO v. WILLIAM H. ROGERS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nA recital of the evidence presented in this case could serve no useful purpose. There was evidence which would have permitted but not required a finding of negligence on the part of the plaintiff. There was evidence which would have permitted but not required a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant. The case was one for the jury.\nOn Plaintiff\u2019s appeal the judgment is reversed.\nOn Defendant\u2019s appeal the judgment is reversed.\nJudges Brock and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Basil L. Whitener and Anne M. Lamm for plaintiff.",
      "Hollowell, Stott and Hollowell by Grady B. Stott for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELVA WALKER RENO v. WILLIAM H. ROGERS\nNo. 7227DC346\n(Filed 26 April 1972)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 50\u2014 sufficiency of evidence for jury\nPlaintiff\u2019s action and defendant\u2019s counterclaim for damages arising out of an automobile accident should have been submitted to the jury.\nAppeal by plaintiff and defendant from BulwinMe, District Court Judge, 10 February 1972 Session of District Court held in Gaston County.\nPlaintiff instituted this action to recover damages arising out of an automobile accident with defendant. Defendant counterclaimed for damages sustained by him. Both parties presented evidence. At the conclusion of all the evidence the court granted defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict against plaintiff and granted plaintiff\u2019s motion for a directed verdict against defendant on his counterclaim. Both plaintiff and defendant appealed.\nBasil L. Whitener and Anne M. Lamm for plaintiff.\nHollowell, Stott and Hollowell by Grady B. Stott for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0286-01",
  "first_page_order": 312,
  "last_page_order": 313
}