{
  "id": 11304525,
  "name": "JOE CLARK v. CHARLIE WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clark v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1974-07-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 742SC550",
  "first_page": "341",
  "last_page": "342",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 341"
    }
  ],
  "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": "160 S.E. 2d 547",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551276
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 S.E. 2d 496",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 625",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550103
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0625-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2849,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.607,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530915895096587
    },
    "sha256": "5e66d1f0b34d163858eebd74b110c2683e0aa91a1293b243a086e4e019d796d0",
    "simhash": "1:c528dffdccc9b262",
    "word_count": 489
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOE CLARK v. CHARLIE WILLIAMS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nThe judgment appealed from was dated 10 January 1974. The record on appeal was docketed in this Court on 14 May 1974. No order of the trial tribunal extending the time for docketing appears in the record. For failure of appellant to docket within apt time, the appeal is subject to dismissal. Rule 5, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals.\nThe record does contain orders dated 11 March and 11 April 1974 extending the time for serving the case on appeal, but an extension of tim\u00e9 to docket the record on appeal is not accomplished by an extension of time to serve case on appeal. Kurtz v. Insurance Co., 6 N.C. App. 625, 170 S.E. 2d 496; Smith v. Starnes, 1 N.C. App. 192, 160 S.E. 2d 547. Each of the orders referred to contains the statement that \u201cthe time for docketing said case is extended to_\u201d Under Rule 5, the trial tribunal may, for good cause, extend the time for docketing the record on appeal for a period not exceeding sixty days, but this cannot be accomplished by an order purporting to extend the time for an indefinite period or to an undesignated date.\nNevertheless, we have reviewed such of appellant\u2019s assignments of error as are brought forward in his brief and find no prejudicial error. Traffic at the intersection where the collision occurred was controlled by a traffic light, and each party contended he had the green light. The case was one for the twelve and on sharply conflicting evidence their verdict was for the plaintiff.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Campbell and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gurganus & Bowen by Edgar J. Gurganus; and Griffin & Martin by Clarence W. Griffin for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Milton E: Moore for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOE CLARK v. CHARLIE WILLIAMS\nNo. 742SC550\n(Filed 3 July 1974)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 39 \u2014 failure to docket record in apt time\nAppeal is subject to dismissal where the record on appeal was not docketed in apt time. Court of Appeals Rule 5.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 39\u2014 extension of time for docketing \u2014 extension of time to serve case \u2014 extension to undesignated date\nAn extension of time to docket the record on appeal is not accomplished by an extension of time to serve the case on appeal or by an order purporting to extend the time for an indefinite period or to an undesignated date.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 57 \u2014 intersection accident \u2014 jury question\nJury question was presented in an action arising from an intersection accident where the intersection was controlled by a traffic light and each party contended he had the green light.\nAppeal by defendant from Martin (Perry), Judge, 7 January 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Martin County.\nThis litigation arises from a two-car collision which occurred at an intersection. Each party contended the other was negligent. The jury returned verdict for the plaintiff, and from judgment on the verdict, defendant appealed.\nGurganus & Bowen by Edgar J. Gurganus; and Griffin & Martin by Clarence W. Griffin for plaintiff appellee.\nMilton E: Moore for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0341-01",
  "first_page_order": 373,
  "last_page_order": 374
}
