{
  "id": 8553450,
  "name": "MRS. BETTY S. PARDUE, Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES M. PARDUE, Deceased v. CHARLOTTE MOTOR SPEEDWAY, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pardue v. Charlotte Motor Speedway, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1968-09-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 6823SC287",
  "first_page": "403",
  "last_page": "404",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 403"
    }
  ],
  "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": "159 S.E. 2d 857",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575160
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S.E. 230",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N.C. 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8600715
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0202-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 2128,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059635523152122
    },
    "sha256": "469c05e68ad3185e220b8e04419a3e7d59aa2752be9f2b288bea0ca8cf2ff28c",
    "simhash": "1:fb0be136986f1063",
    "word_count": 344
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:15:57.624547+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Brocic and ParKer, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. BETTY S. PARDUE, Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES M. PARDUE, Deceased v. CHARLOTTE MOTOR SPEEDWAY, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Britt, J.\nDefendant\u2019s appeal to this Court is premature and, ex mero motu, is dismissed on authority of Morris v. Cleve, 194 N.C. 202, 139 S.E. 230, where on almost identical procedural facts the Supreme Court held: \u201cThe appeal must be dismissed as premature, since the proper procedure was to note an exception and appeal from the final judgment, if adverse to the defendants. [Citations].\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s demurrer ore terms filed in this Court is dismissed without prejudice to the defendant.\nAppeal dismissed.\nBrocic and ParKer, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Britt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jordan, Wright, Nichols, Caff rey & Hill and McElwee & Hall by Edward L. Murrelle for plaintiff appellee.",
      "John H. Small; Sanders, Walker & London and Moore & Rousseau for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. BETTY S. PARDUE, Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES M. PARDUE, Deceased v. CHARLOTTE MOTOR SPEEDWAY, INC.\nNo. 6823SC287\n(Filed 18 September 1968)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6; Pleadings \u00a7 32\u2014 appeal from order allowing motion to amend pursuant to G.S. 1-131 \u2014 dismissal as premature\nWhere plaintiff moves pursuant to G.S. 1-131 to amend bis complaint following certification of a Supreme Court opinion affirming a judgment sustaining defendant\u2019s demurrer, defendant\u2019s appeal from the order allowing the amendment is premature and will be dismissed by the Court of Appeals ex mero motu, the proper procedure being to note an exception and appeal from the final judgment if adverse to defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Gambill, J., at the 29 April 1968 Session of WilKes Superior Court.\nThis case was before the Supreme Court on demurrer at the Fall Term 1967. An opinion was entered during the Spring Term 1968 affirming the Superior Court in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint. See opinion appearing in 273 N.C. 314, 159 S.E. 2d 857, for a more complete statement of facts.\nFollowing the certifying of the Supreme Court opinion, plaintiff, pursuant to G.S. 1-131, moved to amend her complaint and Judge Gambill allowed the motion. Defendant appeals from the order allowing the amendment and also, in this Court, demurs ore tenus for failure of the complaint to state a cause of action.\nJordan, Wright, Nichols, Caff rey & Hill and McElwee & Hall by Edward L. Murrelle for plaintiff appellee.\nJohn H. Small; Sanders, Walker & London and Moore & Rousseau for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0403-01",
  "first_page_order": 423,
  "last_page_order": 424
}