{
  "id": 8657157,
  "name": "STATE v. CHAFUS WHISNANT and REUBEN WHISNANT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Whisnant",
  "decision_date": "1923-05-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "611",
  "last_page": "611",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 N.C. 611"
    }
  ],
  "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": "171 N. C., 818",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272543
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/171/0818-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N. C., 792",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272456
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/173/0792-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 818",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658969
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0818-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 637",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271909
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0637-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 87,
    "char_count": 903,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20766230000281868
    },
    "sha256": "5302bf1b295c98c9f474aac3c9f35869c5ca9d4f2a5f416125549089b0c2d12b",
    "simhash": "1:0bbf146dffa4aced",
    "word_count": 149
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:28.944101+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CHAFUS WHISNANT and REUBEN WHISNANT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oueiam.\nThe defendants excepted to the court\u2019s denial of their motion to dismiss the action, but the evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. The exception is without merit. S. v. Johnson, 184 N. C., 637; S. v. Jenkins, 182 N. C., 818; S. v. Killiam, 173 N. C., 792; S. v. Carlson, 171 N. C., 818.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "Quirm, Hamrick & Harris for' defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CHAFUS WHISNANT and REUBEN WHISNANT.\n(Filed 16 May, 1923.)\nEvidence \u2014 Nonsuit\u2014Trials.\nThe evidence on the trial of this action for violating the prohibition law is held sufficient to sustain a conviction, and warrant the refusal of defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the action.\nAppeal by defendants from Bryson, J., at September Term, 1922, of POLK.\nThe defendants were convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and from the judgment they appealed.\nAttorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nQuirm, Hamrick & Harris for' defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0611-01",
  "first_page_order": 677,
  "last_page_order": 677
}