{
  "id": 8654477,
  "name": "CLARENCE ROTEN et al. v. OWEN J. PARKER et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roten v. Parker",
  "decision_date": "1920-10-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "658",
  "last_page": "659",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "180 N.C. 658"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 105,
    "char_count": 973,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.438,
    "sha256": "b1cae6bae79b773291af5cf057eaf1bb1655de103e141e8917497ff624e20818",
    "simhash": "1:77ca26872bb0dc12",
    "word_count": 163
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:08.757715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CLARENCE ROTEN et al. v. OWEN J. PARKER et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CubiaM.\nAt tbe conclusion of tbe evidence tbe court instructed-tbe jury, if they believed tbe evidence and found tbe facts to be as testified to, tbey would answer tbe issue \u201cNo.\u201d\nUpon a careful examination of tbe evidence in tbis case we fail to see tbat tbe plaintiff made out even a prima facie title to tbe land in controversy.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CubiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Duffy & Day and Cowper, Whitaker & Allen for plaintiffs.",
      "McLean, Varser, McLean & Stacy, Frank Thompson, and I. M. Bailey for defendants. '"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CLARENCE ROTEN et al. v. OWEN J. PARKER et al.\n(Filed 6 October, 1920.)\nInstructions \u2014 Verdict Directing \u2014 Appeal and Error.\nSeld, in this case, a verdict directed upon tbe evidence, if found to be true, was a correct instruction.\nCivil actiok, tried before Kerr, J., at April Term, 1920, of ONsnow, upon this issue:\n\u201cAre the plaintiffs the owners and entitled to the possession of the lands described in the complaint? Answer: No.\u2019 \u201d\nFrom the judgment rendered the plaintiffs appealed.\nDuffy & Day and Cowper, Whitaker & Allen for plaintiffs.\nMcLean, Varser, McLean & Stacy, Frank Thompson, and I. M. Bailey for defendants. '"
  },
  "file_name": "0658-01",
  "first_page_order": 716,
  "last_page_order": 717
}