{
  "id": 8523943,
  "name": "LEM YOUNG and wife, LORA E. YOUNG v. KUEHNE CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., PETER KUEHNE and JANE KUEHNE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Young v. Kuehne Chemical Co.",
  "decision_date": "1981-09-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 8129DC104",
  "first_page": "806",
  "last_page": "807",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 N.C. App. 806"
    }
  ],
  "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": "196 S.E. 2d 538",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548993
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 906",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548779
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/40/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 S.E. 2d 567",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "571"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N.C. App. 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549107
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "89"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/48/0082-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 2773,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.805,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1813549812920936e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7726265122020628
    },
    "sha256": "20a865133ee4354532b22de3390aa2483b396d42e4946eeae5a59a5137bdf1e7",
    "simhash": "1:392851cd16b96a4d",
    "word_count": 458
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:41.579477+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Hill concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LEM YOUNG and wife, LORA E. YOUNG v. KUEHNE CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., PETER KUEHNE and JANE KUEHNE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nPlaintiffs alleged that defendants, by constructing and maintaining a padlocked gate on the only road providing access to plaintiffs\u2019 property, obstructed travel to and from their property; and that such obstruction caused depreciation of the property and jeopardy to plaintiffs\u2019 health, happiness, and well being. They sought restraint of this impediment and \u201cother and further relief ... to which they may [have been] entitled.\u201d Defendants denied plaintiffs\u2019 essential allegations and counterclaimed for a judgment declaring their property free and clear of any claim by plaintiffs.\nThe court, sitting without a jury, granted defendants\u2019 motion at the close of plaintiffs\u2019 evidence for involuntary dismissal pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 41(b). Rule 41(b) provides that a court trying an action without a jury must, when rendering judgment on the merits against the plaintiff, make findings of fact as provided in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(1). The judgment here contains no findings.\nDefendants contend that findings of fact were not necessary because the court ruled as a matter of law that the evidence could not support a judgment for plaintiffs. The basis of the court\u2019s ruling cannot be determined from the judgment, however. Rule 41(b) and cases construing it provide no exception to the requirement that the court make findings of fact. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 41(b); Graphics, Inc. v. Hamby, 48 N.C. App. 82, 268 S.E. 2d 567 (1980); Joyner v. Thomas, 40 N.C. App. 63, 251 S.E. 2d 906 (1979); Hospital Corp. v. Manning, 18 N.C. App. 298, 196 S.E. 2d 538 (1973). \u201cThe requirement that findings of fact be made is mandatory, and the failure to do so is reversible error.\u201d Graphics, Inc., 48 N.C. App. at 89, 268 S.E. 2d at 571.\nThe judgment thus is vacated, and the cause is remanded for a\nNew trial.\nJudges Hedrick and Hill concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jack H. Potts and Paul B. Welch, III, for plaintiff appellants.",
      "Boyd B. Massagee, Jr., for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LEM YOUNG and wife, LORA E. YOUNG v. KUEHNE CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., PETER KUEHNE and JANE KUEHNE\nNo. 8129DC104\n(Filed 15 September 1981)\nRules o\u00ed Civil Procedure \u00a7 41\u2014 nonjury trial \u2014 involuntary dismissal \u2014 failure to find facts\nThe trial court in a nonjury trial erred in failing to make findings of fact to support the entry of judgment granting defendants\u2019 motion for involuntary dismissal at the close of plaintiffs\u2019 evidence. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 41(b).\nAPPEAL by plaintiffs from Hix, Judge. Judgment entered 7 August 1980 in District Court, TRANSYLVANIA County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 September 1981.\nPlaintiffs appeal from a judgment which (1) involuntarily dismissed their action pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 41(b), and (2) declared defendants owners of property free and clear of any claim of plaintiffs.\nJack H. Potts and Paul B. Welch, III, for plaintiff appellants.\nBoyd B. Massagee, Jr., for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0806-01",
  "first_page_order": 834,
  "last_page_order": 835
}