{
  "id": 8655377,
  "name": "C. M. SOLES, Admr., v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Soles v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1924-11-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "825",
  "last_page": "826",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "188 N.C. 825"
    }
  ],
  "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": "258 U. S., 92",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1479325
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/258/0092-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N. C., 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658055
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/143/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 283",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270176
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0283-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 1758,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20763913262896794
    },
    "sha256": "f09542c132ba9f0057c2ecc262bd835ee4dc02ea2be0c7a20157e2ef2bdbd6b3",
    "simhash": "1:15f408c2928a82fe",
    "word_count": 310
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:44:41.585516+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. M. SOLES, Admr., v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nTbis ease was before us at a former term (184 N. C., 283). Tbe first appeal was from a judgment of nonsuit, entered on motion of tbe defendant at tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, and tbis was reversed by us. We are not now permitted to review any question wbicb was then decided, as a party wbo loses in tbis Court may not bave bis ease rebeard by a second appeal. Holland v. R. R., 143 N. C., 435. \"Where a judgment of nonsuit bas been Teversed, and on a second trial tbe plaintiff\u2019s evidence is substantially tbe same as it was on tbe first bearing, tbe cause should be submitted to tbe jury, as tbe former decision bas become tbe law of tbe case, so far as tbe question of non-suit is concerned. Ray v. Veneer Co., ante, 414.\nTbe exceptions relating to tbe question of assumption of risk are not materially different from those presented in Cobia v. R. R., ante, 487, and they are controlled by what is said in that case. It would only be a work of supererogation to repeat here what was said there. See, also, Reed v. Director-General, 258 U. S., 92.\nWe bave found no reversible error on tbe record, and hence tbe validity of tbe trial must be sustained.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. L. Lyon and Tucker & Proctor for plaintiff.",
      "Rountree & Carr for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. M. SOLES, Admr., v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 5 November, 1924.)\nAppeal by defendant from Calvert, J., at February Term, 1924, of Columbus.\nCivil action, to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury, caused by defendant\u2019s wrongful act, and resulting in tbe death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate.\nTbe usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages were submitted to tbe jury and answered by them in favor of tbe plaintiff. Defendant appeals; assigning errors.\nH. L. Lyon and Tucker & Proctor for plaintiff.\nRountree & Carr for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0825-02",
  "first_page_order": 895,
  "last_page_order": 896
}