{
  "id": 8631026,
  "name": "CHARLIE RHODES v. THE AMERICAN UPHOLSTERY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rhodes v. American Upholstery Co.",
  "decision_date": "1929-11-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "673",
  "last_page": "674",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 N.C. 673"
    }
  ],
  "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": "193 N. C., 278",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217727
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0278-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 N. C., 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652116
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/154/0248-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1730,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.826212875628399e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45805160841423576
    },
    "sha256": "7fd34caee6ea13e95ebdf814306acbf76eeca9670654079478a71ebd7a334de8",
    "simhash": "1:f2ef2a99361ca304",
    "word_count": 305
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLIE RHODES v. THE AMERICAN UPHOLSTERY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIf there is error in the trial of this action in the court below, we think it harmless. From the evidence appearing in the record, we do not think it sufficient to have been submitted to the jury to sustain a recovery for actionable negligence.\nIf error should be found and a new trial granted, it would not profit plaintiff. If a new trial was awarded no different result could follow. The entire testimony relevant to the issues was. before the court. Erom this evidence it is apparent that in no aspect of it could plaintiff recover. In such eases our decisions are to the effect that a new trial will not be granted. Bateman v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 248; Booth v. Hairston, 193 N. C., 278. For the reasons given, there is\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walser & Walser for plaintiff.",
      "McCrary & DeLapp for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLIE RHODES v. THE AMERICAN UPHOLSTERY COMPANY.\n(Filed 6 November, 1929.)\nAppeal and Error J e \u2014 Where plaintiff could not recover on any aspect of case he will not he awarded a new trial.\nWhere the plaintiff cannot recover in his action under any aspect of the evidence, error which may have been committed upon certain phases of the ease will not be regarded as reversible, and a new trial will not be granted.\nAppeal from MacB.a,e, Special Judge and a jury, at April Special Civil Term, 1929, of DavidsoN.\nNo error.\nThis is an action for actionable negligence, brought by plaintiff against defendant claiming injury to bis left eye. ' Tbe defendant denied negligence and set up plea of contributory negligence and assumption of risk.\nTbe usual issues were submitted to the jury and the answer to the first one: \u201cWas the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint?\u201d was No.\nWalser & Walser for plaintiff.\nMcCrary & DeLapp for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0673-01",
  "first_page_order": 737,
  "last_page_order": 738
}