{
  "id": 8553978,
  "name": "JOHN MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER v. BRUCE-TERMINIX COMPANY and SAM NEWMAN, Jointly and Severally",
  "name_abbreviation": "Christopher v. Bruce-Terminix Co.",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 7515SC205",
  "first_page": "520",
  "last_page": "522",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 520"
    }
  ],
  "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": "210 S.E. 2d 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550000
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 41",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549975
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/25/0018-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 267,
    "char_count": 4000,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.568,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.728108280744093e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45450352510899283
    },
    "sha256": "9e799d679a0a84283e29e32e660d5e6c83375d48ebd5b545cb6b0d4554e53364",
    "simhash": "1:0329d0ee60ef21eb",
    "word_count": 634
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Martin and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER v. BRUCE-TERMINIX COMPANY and SAM NEWMAN, Jointly and Severally"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nRule 5.4 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil, Procedure provides in part:\n\u201c.(b) .Judgment upon- multiple claims or involving -multiple parties. \u2014 When more-than one claim for relief is 'presented in ah action,; whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossc\u00edain\u00ed, or third-party claim, or when multiple' parties are-:involved,, the court: may enter a. final Judgment .as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only if there is no just reason for delay' and' it is so determined in: the judgment'. Such judgment.-shall'then be subject to review by appeal or as'otherwise \"provided by these rules or other statutes. In the . absence, of entry of such a final \u2018judgment, any order or other form of decision,\" however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer- than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or., parties and shall not then be subject to review either by \u00e1ppeal or otherwise except as expressly provided by these rules or /.other statutes. Similarly, in the.absence of entry of such a - final-judgment, any order or'other form of. decision is subject to revision .at-.any- tim\u00e9 before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties^\u201d\nThe judgment dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claim against Bruce-Terminix adjudicates \u201cthe rights, and liabilities of fewer than all the parties\u201d and* contains no determination that \u201cthere is no just reason for delay.\u201d It therefore is not a-final judgment'.and is not appealable.. See Leasing, Inc. v. Dan-Cleve Corp., 25 N.C. App. 18, 212 S.E. 2d 41 (1975) ; Arnold v. Howard, 24 N.C. App. 255, 210 S.E. 2d 492 (1974). Plaintiff\u2019s appeal is\nDismissed.\nJudges Martin and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Vernon, Vernon & Wooten, P.A-.; by Wiley P: Wooten, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, by. Bynum M. Hunter and Vance Barron, Jr;, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER v. BRUCE-TERMINIX COMPANY and SAM NEWMAN, Jointly and Severally\nNo. 7515SC205\n(Filed 2 July 1975)\nRules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 54\u2014 dismissal against one defendant \u2014 judgment not appealable\nWhere plaintiff brought an action for damages for assault and battery against defendants, alleging that the individual defendant violently assaulted him while individual defendant was acting within the scope of his employment with defendant company, the judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claim against defendant company adjudicated the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties and contained no determination that there was no just reason for delay; therefore, it was not a final judgment and was not appealable.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Braswell, Judge. Judgment entered 6 February 1975 in Superior Court, Alamance County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 May 1975.\nPlaintiff brought this action seeking to recover actual and punitive damages for assault and battery. He alleged in his complaint that prior to 25 February 1974 he was employed by defendant Bruce-Terminix Company. Defendant Sam Newman was a vice-president of Bruce-Terminix, and one of his duties was to meet with persons who left the company\u2019s employment and discuss the reasons for their departure. On 25 February 1974 plaintiff terminated his employment with Bruce-Terminix, and on March 1, he went to the company\u2019s Alamance County office to pick up his final paycheck and meet with Newman. When plaintiff told Newman that he had left Bruce-Terminix to work for Braam Pest Control, Inc., Newman allegedly became enraged and violently assaulted plaintiff causing severe and permanent injuries. Plaintiff further alleged that when Newman assaulted him, Newman was acting within the scope of his employment.\n-Bruce-Terminix moved pursuant to- G.S. 1A-\u00cd,. Rul\u00e9 12(b) (6), t\u00f3 dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief.\nUpon the order of the trial court granting the motion, plaintiff gave notice of appeal.\nVernon, Vernon & Wooten, P.A-.; by Wiley P: Wooten, for plaintiff appellant.\nSmith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, by. Bynum M. Hunter and Vance Barron, Jr;, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0520-01",
  "first_page_order": 548,
  "last_page_order": 550
}