{
  "id": 8554500,
  "name": "JEAN H. HIGH v. CLARENCE MARSHALL HIGH",
  "name_abbreviation": "High v. High",
  "decision_date": "1974-03-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7411DC19",
  "first_page": "100",
  "last_page": "101",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 100"
    }
  ],
  "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": 1462,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "sha256": "cb66570586d1c411396ecdd471a672fc0964f810ba5e8b7249de63f6fc2fe5f4",
    "simhash": "1:f29a44de2a2d78cd",
    "word_count": 237
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:29.924632+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JEAN H. HIGH v. CLARENCE MARSHALL HIGH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nThe testimony at trial was not officially recorded, and the case on appeal was finally settled by the trial judge. It may well be, as contended by defendant, that not all of the court\u2019s findings of fact are supported by the record before us. It is clear, nevertheless, that the record does support those findings which are essential to the order entered and that no abuse of discretion has been shown.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. Austin Stevens for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Corbett & Corbett by Albert A. Corbett, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JEAN H. HIGH v. CLARENCE MARSHALL HIGH\nNo. 7411DC19\n(Filed 6 March 1974)\nAppeal by defendant from Godwin, District Judge, 20 March 1973 Session of District Court held in Johnston County.\nAction for alimony and support for two minor children. Plaintiff waived alimony. Defendant\u2019s answer admitted that he had an annual salary of $7500.00 plus a bonus. On cross-examination, he admitted that his gross salary is $775.00 per month plus an annual bonus of approximately ten percent of his salary. The court awarded plaintiff exclusive possession of the former home of the parties, ordered defendant to pay the monthly installments on the indebtedness on that property in the amount of $212.00, ordered defendant to pay $50.00 per month for the support of each child, restrained defendant from going on the premises occupied by plaintiff and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff\u2019s counsel $300.00.\nL. Austin Stevens for plaintiff appellee.\nCorbett & Corbett by Albert A. Corbett, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0100-02",
  "first_page_order": 128,
  "last_page_order": 129
}