{
  "id": 8557257,
  "name": "TED REID v. FLETA KERLEY REID",
  "name_abbreviation": "Reid v. Reid",
  "decision_date": "1976-06-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 7625DC148",
  "first_page": "754",
  "last_page": "755",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 754"
    }
  ],
  "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": "216 S.E. 2d 910",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565898,
        8565869,
        8565809,
        8565845,
        8565787
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0241-05",
        "/nc/288/0241-04",
        "/nc/288/0241-02",
        "/nc/288/0241-03",
        "/nc/288/0241-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": 195,
    "char_count": 2552,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.641,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39453632238790753
    },
    "sha256": "53d714745f150e37076b03ca64415722039e08df70f5b1c573b8767deb789f89",
    "simhash": "1:2cab528204ec33ce",
    "word_count": 403
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "TED REID v. FLETA KERLEY REID"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe judgment and order from which defendant appeals adjudicate fewer than all the claims of the parties. Since they are interlocutory and the judge below failed to find there was \u201cno just reason for delay\u201d in appealing the judgment, they are not now subject to review. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b) ; Leasing, Inc. v. Dan-Cleve Corp., 25 N.C. App. 18, 212 S.E. 2d 41 (1975), cert. denied 288 N.C. 241, 216 S.E. 2d 910 (1975).\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Parker and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "West, Groome and Baumberger by Carroll N. Tuttle for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Randy Duncan for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TED REID v. FLETA KERLEY REID\nNo. 7625DC148\n(Filed 16 June 1976)\nRules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 54\u2014 judgment adjudicating fewer than all claims \u2014 appeal premature\nDefendant\u2019s appeal from a judgment adjudicating fewer than all the claims of the parties is dismissed since the trial court failed to find that there was \u201cno just reason for delay.\u201d\nAppeal by defendant from Vernon, Judge. Judgment entered 17 November 1975 in District Court, Caldwell County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 May 1976.\nThis is a civil action wherein the plaintiff, Ted Reid, is seeking a divorce from bed and board from his wife, the defendant, Fleta Kerley Reid. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that his wife \u201coffered such indignities to the person of the plaintiff as to render his condition intolerable\u201d and \u201cconstructively abandoned\u201d him. The defendant answered denying the material allegations of the complaint. She also counterclaimed for both permanent and pendente lite alimony and an attorney\u2019s fee, claiming that plaintiff had abandoned and deserted her.\nOn 16 October 1975, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on defendant\u2019s counterclaim, alleging that defendant is not a \u201cdependent spouse\u201d as required by G.S. 50-16.2. After the filing of interrogatories by both parties and an affidavit of defendant, all tending to show the income and assets of the respective parties, plaintiff renewed his motion for summary judgment. On 17 November 1975, the matter came on for a hearing before Judge Vernon who granted plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment on defendant\u2019s counterclaim. On 19 November 1975, defendant moved to sec aside summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff\u2019s sworn answers to defendant\u2019s interrogatories regarding his income were substantially incorrect. This matter came on for hearing wherein both parties offered evidence. Following the hearing, Judge Vernon entered an order on 20 November 1975 denying defendant\u2019s motion. Defendant appealed.\nWest, Groome and Baumberger by Carroll N. Tuttle for plaintiff appellee.\nRandy Duncan for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0754-01",
  "first_page_order": 786,
  "last_page_order": 787
}
