{
  "id": 8621256,
  "name": "CHLOE TINSLEY v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tinsley v. City of Winston-Salem",
  "decision_date": "1927-11-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "808",
  "last_page": "809",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 808"
    }
  ],
  "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": "192 N. C., 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625163
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0577-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655695
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0162-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 106,
    "char_count": 943,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20721072927417777
    },
    "sha256": "13ed77bce9f1985a2b2f80efe450f3fe5474ee024d53621682ad4f864a031f2e",
    "simhash": "1:5062146730946818",
    "word_count": 165
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHLOE TINSLEY v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis case was considered by the Court upon a former appeal, which is reported in 192 N. 0., p. 597. This decision becomes tbe law of tbe case so far as tbe subsequent trial is concerned. Nobles v. Davenport, 185 N. C., 162; Mfg. Co. v. Hodgins, 192 N. C., 577.\nAfter a careful examination of tbe record and briefs of counsel for tbe parties, tbe court is of tbe opinion that no error of law was committed upon tbe trial, and tbe judgment of tbe trial court is upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wallace & Wells for plaintiff.",
      "Fred M. Parrish for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHLOE TINSLEY v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM.\n(Filed 23 November, 1927.)\nCivil actiou before Finley, J., at February Term) 1927, of Forsyth.\nThis was a1 civil action for damages for personal injury sustained by plaintiff by reason of slipping into an uncovered or unguarded hole or excavation on North Elm Street. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nWallace & Wells for plaintiff.\nFred M. Parrish for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0808-02",
  "first_page_order": 876,
  "last_page_order": 877
}