{
  "id": 8630055,
  "name": "DAVID U. LAW v. SANFORD F. JOHNSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Law v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1928-11-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "809",
  "last_page": "809",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 809"
    }
  ],
  "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": 85,
    "char_count": 798,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.464,
    "sha256": "571fabe45424ebbc8cb3fa3ca62eb088f9a2887dae0dc9107ea3a44221d007cd",
    "simhash": "1:2516e14706b40f6a",
    "word_count": 132
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVID U. LAW v. SANFORD F. JOHNSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThis is an action for the recovery of damages growing out of a collision of automobiles alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages were answered in favor of the plaintiff, and from the judgment pronounced the defendant' appealed, assigning error.\nWe have examined the appellant\u2019s exceptions and have discovered no eri\u2019or which entitles him to a new trial. The questions of law have been frequently considered and require no additional discussion.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. E. Alexander and L. M. Butler for plaintiff.",
      "Fred M. Parrish and R. L. Deal for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVID U. LAW v. SANFORD F. JOHNSON.\n(Filed 7 November, 1928.)\nAppeal by defendant from MacRae, Special Judge, a,t May Term, 1928, of Eoksyth.\nNo error.\nJ. E. Alexander and L. M. Butler for plaintiff.\nFred M. Parrish and R. L. Deal for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0809-01",
  "first_page_order": 889,
  "last_page_order": 889
}