{
  "id": 8552051,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN H. DAHL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dahl",
  "decision_date": "1972-10-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 7212SC575",
  "first_page": "438",
  "last_page": "438",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 438"
    }
  ],
  "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": 103,
    "char_count": 1163,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "sha256": "3a7475a003d125c0ec8bdcdef9b8637190c4527cfe3ea7a207f31a2bd5c552b0",
    "simhash": "1:90f84651497eca4a",
    "word_count": 179
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:31.279819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN H. DAHL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MALLARD, Chief Judge.\nThere was ample evidence upon which a proper finding was made by Judge Clark that the defendant had wilfully violated the terms and conditions of the probation judgment. Judge Clark properly ordered that the defendant be required to serve the sentence imposed.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MALLARD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan and Associate Attorney Haskell for the State.",
      "Kenneth A. Glusman, Assistant Public Defender, Twelfth Judicial District, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN H. DAHL\nNo. 7212SC575\n(Filed 25 October 1972)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 145.1\u2014 revocation of probation \u2014 evidence\nThere was sufficient evidence to support the court\u2019s finding that defendant had wilfully violated the terms and conditions of his probation.\nAppeal by defendant from Clark, Judge, 27 March 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Cumberland County for the trial of criminal cases.\nThe defendant was charged with the violation of the terms and conditions of a probation judgment. From the order of revocation which required that the sentence previously suspended be placed into effect and that commitment issue, the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Morgan and Associate Attorney Haskell for the State.\nKenneth A. Glusman, Assistant Public Defender, Twelfth Judicial District, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0438-01",
  "first_page_order": 462,
  "last_page_order": 462
}