{
  "id": 12151789,
  "name": "Strand vs. Blunden",
  "name_abbreviation": "Strand v. Blunden",
  "decision_date": "1793",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "212",
  "last_page": "212",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Mart. 211"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 N.C. 211"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "C.C.D.N.C.",
    "id": 17319,
    "name": "United States Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 34,
    "char_count": 200,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.647,
    "sha256": "3458484865ffb10e4edc9b7dbeff0e3d94dfa3c9db65ff4316cd1b4577a10cf4",
    "simhash": "1:5e64fe25d2d56469",
    "word_count": 36
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:17:01.495884+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Strand vs. Blunden."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "IN case. The judgment was ideo consideratum est quod qu\u00e6rens recuperaret; and reversed; it ought to have seen quod recupe et. H. 2 Car. rot. 121. vel 122. Bendl. 193.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Strand vs. Blunden.\nTrin. 3 Car."
  },
  "file_name": "0212-01",
  "first_page_order": 361,
  "last_page_order": 361
}