{
  "id": 8549151,
  "name": "DANIEL J. CRAVEN v. JOEL DIMMETTE, LUTHER OEHLBECK, ROBERT L. ROGERS, d/b/a THE SPORTS CENTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Craven v. Dimmette",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7025DC256",
  "first_page": "75",
  "last_page": "76",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 75"
    }
  ],
  "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": "169 S.E. 2d 129",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 617",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552597
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0617-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2661,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.609,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47315692922637576
    },
    "sha256": "fb7330d1a974f5e730f7162bfee11b876888be9d594bdd2fdc4a17e751a7934f",
    "simhash": "1:9dffc12a2dcfd1fb",
    "word_count": 459
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Brook and Graham, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DANIEL J. CRAVEN v. JOEL DIMMETTE, LUTHER OEHLBECK, ROBERT L. ROGERS, d/b/a THE SPORTS CENTER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, J.\nDefendants have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s appeal for that plaintiff failed to docket his case on appeal within the time allowed by Rule 5 of the Court of Appeals. Said rule provides that if the record on appeal is not docketed within ninety days after the-date of the judgment, order, decree, or determination appealed from,, the case may be dismissed, provided, the trial tribunal may, for good cause, extend the time not exceeding sixty days, for docketing, the record on appeal.\nThe record before us contains no judgment except the judgment-dated 5 February 1969 which was considered on the former appeal-Rule 19(a) of our rules provides, inter alia, that \"the order, judgment, decree, or determination appealed from shall be included in the record on appeal in all cases.\u201d The statement of case on appeal reveals that the case was retried in district court on 6 November 1969 and the record contains an order by the trial judge dated 6> February 1970 providing that \u201cplaintiff shall have an additional forty days within which to docket the case on appeal in the Court of Appeals, up to and including the fourth day of March, 1970.\u2019r The record on appeal was filed in this Court on 9 March 1970.\nFor failure to comply with the rules of this Court, plaintiff\u2019s appeal is dismissed. Rule 48, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.\nAppeal dismissed.\nBrook and Graham, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ted 8. Douglas for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Townsend & Todd by James Todd, Jr., for defendant appellees-"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DANIEL J. CRAVEN v. JOEL DIMMETTE, LUTHER OEHLBECK, ROBERT L. ROGERS, d/b/a THE SPORTS CENTER\nNo. 7025DC256\n(Filed 6 May 1970)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7\u00a7 39, 40\u2014 failure to docket record in apt time \u2014 failure to include judgment in record\nAppeal is dismissed for failure to docket the record on appeal within the time, as extended by the trial court, allowed by Rule 5 and for failure to include the judgment appealed from in the record on appeal as required by Rule 19(a). Court of Appeals Rule No. 48.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Vernon, District Judge, November 1969 Session, Caldwell District Court.\nThis is a civil action for damages for breach of warranty in the sale of a boat by defendants to plaintiff. The case was before this Court at the 1969 Spring Session at which time we held that the trial court erred at its February 1969 Civil Session in entering judgment of nonsuit at close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence. Our opinion is reported in 5 N.C. App. 617, 169 S.E. 2d 129.\nThe record before us discloses that following presentation of all evidence at the retrial, defendants\u2019 motion for nonsuit was allowed! and that plaintiff appealed.\nTed 8. Douglas for plaintiff appellant.\nTownsend & Todd by James Todd, Jr., for defendant appellees-"
  },
  "file_name": "0075-01",
  "first_page_order": 99,
  "last_page_order": 100
}