{
  "id": 8549139,
  "name": "SARAH S. DENNIS v. LUCY M. ROSS and JAMES GAVIN ROSS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dennis v. Ross",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 7219SC216",
  "first_page": "228",
  "last_page": "229",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 228"
    }
  ],
  "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": 141,
    "char_count": 1789,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.513,
    "sha256": "126ec0b36cf250a55607313ab07137890afe976a254be2835872f6ddae9a3be2",
    "simhash": "1:b91ff3b94d4190eb",
    "word_count": 292
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SARAH S. DENNIS v. LUCY M. ROSS and JAMES GAVIN ROSS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nUnder Rule 4 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina defendants may not appeal from the order entered by Judge Johnston; therefore, their attempted appeal is dismissed.\nPursuant to Rule 4 defendants have filed a petition for certiorari asking that this court review Judge Johnston\u2019s order. The petition is denied.\nAppeal dismissed.\nPetition for certiorari denied.\nJudges Parker and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cecil R. Jenkins, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Hartsell, Hartsell & Mills by Boyd C. Campbell, Jr., for petitioner appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SARAH S. DENNIS v. LUCY M. ROSS and JAMES GAVIN ROSS\nNo. 7219SC216\n(Filed 28 June 1972)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6\u2014 orders appealable \u2014 denial of motion to dismiss \u2014 improper service of process\nDefendants could not appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss the action against them on the ground that they had not been properly served with process. Court of Appeals Rule 4.\nAppeal by defendants from Johnston, Judge, at the 1 November 1971 Session of Cabarrus Superior Court.\nThis action was instituted on 11 December 1969. Plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injuries allegedly received by her on 11 December 1966 when an automobile owned and operated by defendants collided with an automobile operated by plaintiff.\nOn 2 July 1971 defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for that they have not been properly served with process and the court has no jurisdiction over them. On 28 October 1971 defendants filed what is designated as an \u201camended motion to dismiss\u201d the action. Following a hearing an order was entered on 3 November 1971 adjudging that the Superior Court of Cabarrus County has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the defendants in this action. Defendants attempt to appeal from the order.\nCecil R. Jenkins, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.\nHartsell, Hartsell & Mills by Boyd C. Campbell, Jr., for petitioner appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0228-01",
  "first_page_order": 252,
  "last_page_order": 253
}