{
  "id": 8658559,
  "name": "CHARLIE ROLLISON v. SAM ALEXANDER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rollison v. Alexander",
  "decision_date": "1921-10-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "767",
  "last_page": "767",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 N.C. 767"
    }
  ],
  "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": 126,
    "char_count": 1325,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.428,
    "sha256": "5636e5f5bd4a3964f4a22dff85984ac3a1d1e227b3a028625b03d6526a65017d",
    "simhash": "1:061eae26223581fc",
    "word_count": 221
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:57:09.696199+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLIE ROLLISON v. SAM ALEXANDER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cubiak.\nAn examination of the instant record leaves us with the impression that the case has been tried in substantial conformity to our decisions. Upon the controverted issues of fact, the jury have answered in favor of the defendant; and we have found no material error which would warrant us in disturbing the result.\nThe appeal raises no new question of law and we conclude that the trial below must be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cubiak."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D. L. Ward and F. 0. Brinson for plaintiff.",
      "Ward & Ward and Z. V. Bawls for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLIE ROLLISON v. SAM ALEXANDER.\n(Filed 12 October, 1921.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Negligence.\nThis case involved controverted issues of facts as to negligence and contributory negligence, and no material error is found in the rulings of law by the trial judge.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Devin, J., at Hay Term, 1921, of Pamlioo.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent personal injury-\nUpon denial of liability and issues joined, tlie jury returned the following verdict:\n\u201c1. Was plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. Did plaintiff by his own negligence contribute to his injury? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c3. What damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: < ! V\nFrom a judgment in favor of defendant, the plaintiff appealed.\nD. L. Ward and F. 0. Brinson for plaintiff.\nWard & Ward and Z. V. Bawls for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0767-01",
  "first_page_order": 837,
  "last_page_order": 837
}