{
  "id": 8523497,
  "name": "JERRY LEE TERRY v. BOB DUNN FORD, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Terry v. Bob Dunn Ford, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1985-10-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 8518SC197",
  "first_page": "457",
  "last_page": "458",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. App. 457"
    }
  ],
  "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": "276 S.E. 2d 381",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "385"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 N.C. 478",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567499
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "482"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/302/0478-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 2718,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.794,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033288041117455
    },
    "sha256": "a7b7fa5a9c81865b7da067c6a66e44378ddce1e4cb54f5e6ecb2f1c282fcccb3",
    "simhash": "1:df268eed720bfb68",
    "word_count": 446
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:01.691260+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WELL.S and MARTIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JERRY LEE TERRY v. BOB DUNN FORD, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs action for failure to appear and prosecute his action. Plaintiffs attorney was present and appeared ready to go forward with his case.\nAs our Supreme Court recently stated:\n[O]ur research fails to disclose . . . any statute, rule of court or decision which mandates the presence of a party to a civil action or proceeding at the trial of, or a hearing in connection with, the action or proceeding unless the party is specifically ordered to appear. Those who are familiar with the operation of our courts in North Carolina know that quite frequently a party to a civil action or proceeding does not appear at the trial or a hearing related to the action or proceeding.\nHamlin v. Hamlin, 302 N.C. 478, 482, 276 S.E. 2d 381, 385 (1981). Plaintiff had not been ordered to appear for trial. The appearance of his attorney of record was sufficient to meet the requirement that he prosecute his action. The trial court\u2019s order is erroneous and is, hereby,\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges WELL.S and MARTIN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert S. Cahoon for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Rivenbark & Kirkman, by Rodney D. Tigges and John W. Kirkman, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JERRY LEE TERRY v. BOB DUNN FORD, INC.\nNo. 8518SC197\n(Filed 15 October 1985)\nTrial \u00a7 4\u2014 failure of plaintiff to appear \u2014 plaintiffs counsel present \u2014dismissal improper\nThe trial court erred by dismissing plaintiffs action for failure to appear and prosecute where plaintiff had not been ordered to appear for trial and plaintiffs attorney was present and appeared ready to go forward with his case. The appearance of his attorney of record was sufficient to meet the requirement that he prosecute his action.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Beaty, Judge. Judgment entered 5 November 1984 in Superior Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 September 1985.\nThis is a civil action wherein the plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages allegedly resulting from defendant\u2019s unlawful conversion of plaintiffs automobile. The matter came on for trial at the 22 October 1984 Session of Guilford County Superior Court. When the case was called for trial it was determined that the named plaintiff was not present in court. However, he was represented by his counsel of record. Also present was the plaintiffs wife who was prepared to testify regarding the allegations contained in the complaint. The defendant upon learning this fact made a motion to dismiss for \u201cfailure to come in and prosecute the case.\u201d Following counsels\u2019 arguments, the court entered an oral order allowing the motion. On 5 November 1984, a written order was entered dismissing plaintiffs action pursuant to Rule 41(b). Plaintiff appealed.\nRobert S. Cahoon for plaintiff appellant.\nRivenbark & Kirkman, by Rodney D. Tigges and John W. Kirkman, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0457-01",
  "first_page_order": 489,
  "last_page_order": 490
}
