{
  "id": 8552574,
  "name": "GILBERT M. SHOOK, JR., Plaintiff, v. HERRING CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Employer, SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shook v. Herring Construction Co.",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 7412IC1044",
  "first_page": "231",
  "last_page": "232",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 231"
    }
  ],
  "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 874",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575029
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0240-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 767",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556062
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0556-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1897,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.62,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34794267928361844
    },
    "sha256": "8ddaf1f3ae683035844e8c6e9d4fe5cf28fe55cfed2b0bb6ca1b88c7559906f9",
    "simhash": "1:dc960d4d55a973dd",
    "word_count": 301
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GILBERT M. SHOOK, JR., Plaintiff, v. HERRING CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Employer, SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nThe crux of plaintiff\u2019s argument on appeal is that plaintiff\u2019s testimony was the only evidence of how his injury occurred ; that plaintiff\u2019s testimony supports an award of compensation; and that the Commission erred in denying compensation.\nWe note that defendant offered considerable evidence which tended to show that plaintiff\u2019s testimony was incredible. In any event the Commission is not required to accept as true even the uncontroverted testimony of a witness. Wallace v. Watkins-Carolina Express, Inc., 11 N.C. App. 556, 181 S.E. 2d 767 (1971). Upon appeal this Court does not have the right to weigh' the evidence and decide the issue on the weight given the evidence by this Court. Hollman v. City of Raleigh, 273 N.C. 240, 159 S.E. 2d 874 (1968).\nAffirmed.\nJudges Vaughn and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William J. Townsend, for the plaintiff.",
      "Anderson, Nimoeks & Broadfoot, by Hal W. Broadfoot, for the defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GILBERT M. SHOOK, JR., Plaintiff, v. HERRING CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Employer, SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier\nNo. 7412IC1044\n(Filed 19 March 1975)\n1. Master and Servant \u00a7 93\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 uncontroverted testimony\nThe Industrial Commission is not required to accept as true the uncontroverted testimony of a witness.\n2. Master and Servant \u00a7 96\u2014 workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 review of evidence on appeal\nUpon appeal the Court of Appeals does not have the right to weigh the evidence and decide the issue on the weight it gives the evidence.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order of the North Carolina Industrial Commission entered 13 September 1974. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 March 1975.\nThe evidence in this claim was heard before Deputy Com-misisoner Roney in Fayetteville on 30 April 1974. He entered his award denying compensation on 24 June 1974. Upon appeal the full Commission affirmed the denial of compensation. Plaintiff appealed to this Court.\nWilliam J. Townsend, for the plaintiff.\nAnderson, Nimoeks & Broadfoot, by Hal W. Broadfoot, for the defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0231-01",
  "first_page_order": 259,
  "last_page_order": 260
}