{
  "id": 8658292,
  "name": "OLIVIA M. BLAKE et al. v. CHARLES O. CASE et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Blake v. Case",
  "decision_date": "1922-06-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "681",
  "last_page": "682",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 N.C. 681"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "159 N. C., 236",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657880
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/159/0236-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N. C., 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 127,
    "char_count": 1121,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.48,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20767388368974407
    },
    "sha256": "ae06251251d8f8a358418fbcc4aa449a1631f0c3e1c32847e1c7b75455e6541f",
    "simhash": "1:05d6a9ed0b25b779",
    "word_count": 189
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:22.299745+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "OLIVIA M. BLAKE et al. v. CHARLES O. CASE et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe controversy on trial narrowed itself principally to 'questions relating to adverse possession under color of title. After a careful reading of the record, we are convinced that the case has been tried in substantial conformity with the law as bearing on the subject, .-and we have found no sufficient reason for disturbing the result below. Upon the question of adverse possession, his Honor followed closely the decisions of this Court in the cases of Alexander v. Cedar Works, 171 N. C., 137, and Locklear v. Savage, 159 N. C., 236.\nWe have found no reversible or prejudicial error.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jones, Williams & J ones for plaintiffs.",
      "Martin, BoTlins & Wright for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "OLIVIA M. BLAKE et al. v. CHARLES O. CASE et al.\n(Filed 2 June, 1922.)\nAppeal by defendants from Brock, J., at October Term, 1921, of Buucombe, in an action, under C. S., 1743, to quiet title, or to remove a \u2022cloud therefrom, and to have the plaintiffs declared to be the undisputed .owners of the lands described in the complaint.\nProm a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiffs, the defendants .appealed, assigning errors.\nJones, Williams & J ones for plaintiffs.\nMartin, BoTlins & Wright for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0681-01",
  "first_page_order": 741,
  "last_page_order": 742
}