{
  "id": 8555995,
  "name": "IN RE: JOHN THOMAS NEWSOME",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Newsome",
  "decision_date": "1974-04-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 741SC238",
  "first_page": "345",
  "last_page": "346",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 345"
    }
  ],
  "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": "201 S.E. 2d 704",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552568
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0358-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 1953,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.611,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20602417361012168
    },
    "sha256": "8b2bd5ff7aaed9ce0262b369e3b91a08350f23d87df0c859583b58120c659b74",
    "simhash": "1:bd8f8ef887686f7d",
    "word_count": 328
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:29.924632+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Carson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN RE: JOHN THOMAS NEWSOME"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDid the trial court err in ruling that Article 8 of Chapter 20 of the General Statutes of North Carolina is unconstitutional and dismissing the action?\nThe question was answered in the affirmative in State v. Carlisle, 20 N.C. App. 358, 201 S.E. 2d 704 (1974), wherein this court upheld the constitutionality of said Article; the decision of this court was affirmed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina on 10 April 1974. No useful purpose would be served in repeating here the reasoning given in Carlisle.\nIn fairness to the able trial judge, who was also the trial judge in Carlisle, we point out that the opinion in Carlisle was filed on 9 January 1974, subsequent to the entry of judgment in this cause on 3 December 1973.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for hearing.\nReversed.\nJudges Hedrick and Carson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan, by Assistant Attorneys General William B. Ray and William W. Melvin, for the State.",
      "No counsel on appeal for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN RE: JOHN THOMAS NEWSOME\nNo. 741SC238\n(Filed 17 April 1974)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 2\u2014 habitual offender statute \u2014 constitutionality\nN. C. General Statutes, Article 8, Section 20 (G.S. 20-220 et seq.) dealing with habitual offenders of the motor vehicles laws is constitutional.\nAppeal by the State from Martin (Perry), Judge, at the 3 December 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Dare County.\nThis action was instituted by the solicitor of the First Solic-itorial District pursuant to Article 8 of Chapter 20 of the General Statutes (G.S. 20-220 et seq.) to have respondent declared a habitual offender of the motor vehicle laws of this State and to have him barred from operating a motor vehicle upon the highways of this State. When the cause came on for hearing, the trial court ruled that Article 8 of Chapter 20 is unconstitutional and dismissed the action.\nThe State appealed pursuant to G.S. 15-179.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, by Assistant Attorneys General William B. Ray and William W. Melvin, for the State.\nNo counsel on appeal for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0345-01",
  "first_page_order": 373,
  "last_page_order": 374
}