{
  "id": 8358066,
  "name": "AUTOMOTIVE RESTYLING CONCEPTS, INC. v. CENTRAL SERVICE LINCOLN MERCURY, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Automotive Restyling Concepts, Inc. v. Central Service Lincoln Mercury, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1987-09-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 878DC144",
  "first_page": "173",
  "last_page": "174",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.C. App. 173"
    }
  ],
  "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": "68 S.E. 1064",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1910,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 N.C. 120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271599
      ],
      "year": 1910,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/153/0120-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 2123,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.79,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20294078921203515
    },
    "sha256": "d6d4ac936043bacf0ea5e8a57bbb7710a1fe1e362bcb93688691b19c63c0f413",
    "simhash": "1:6e6fcb8f5feb97c2",
    "word_count": 318
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:55.356094+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "AUTOMOTIVE RESTYLING CONCEPTS, INC. v. CENTRAL SERVICE LINCOLN MERCURY, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORR, Judge.\nDefendant has appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion, however, is based on defendant\u2019s claim that the Virginia judgment against defendant, which plaintiff seeks to enforce by this action, is void in our state because the Virginia court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant.\nOur trial court\u2019s in personam jurisdiction clearly encompasses defendant, a North Carolina corporation with its principal office in Goldsboro. Roberson v. Lumber Co., 153 N.C. 120, 68 S.E. 1064 (1910). Whether the Virginia court properly asserted in personam jurisdiction over defendant is an issue to be determined by the trial court.\nTherefore, this appeal is interlocutory in nature and does not affect a substantial right which would be lost if not reviewed before final judgment. N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 1-277 and 7A-27.\nAppeal dismissed.\nChief Judge Hedrick and Judge Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ORR, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Judson H. Blount, III, attorney for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Barnes, Braswell, Haithcock & Warren, by Glenn A. Barfield, attorney for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "AUTOMOTIVE RESTYLING CONCEPTS, INC. v. CENTRAL SERVICE LINCOLN MERCURY, INC.\nNo. 878DC144\n(Filed 15 September 1987)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6.3\u2014 claim of no personal jurisdiction by Virginia court\u2014 action to enforce judgment \u2014 appeal interlocutory\nDefendant\u2019s appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is interlocutory and is dismissed where defendant\u2019s motion was based on its claim that the Virginia judgment against it, which plaintiff sought to enforce by this action, was void in North Carolina because the Virginia court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant, but the trial court\u2019s in personam jurisdiction clearly encompassed defendant, a North Carolina corporation with its principal office in Goldsboro, and whether the Virginia court properly asserted in personam jurisdiction over defendant was an issue to be determined by the trial court.\nAppeal by defendant from Goodman, Judge. Order entered 29 October 1986 in District Court, Wayne County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 September 1987.\nJudson H. Blount, III, attorney for plaintiff-appellee.\nBarnes, Braswell, Haithcock & Warren, by Glenn A. Barfield, attorney for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0173-01",
  "first_page_order": 201,
  "last_page_order": 202
}