{
  "id": 8616419,
  "name": "NAOMI ELMORE v. DUDLEY SHOALS COTTON MILLS COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Elmore v. Dudley Shoals Cotton Mills Co.",
  "decision_date": "1930-07-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "803",
  "last_page": "804",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 N.C. 803"
    }
  ],
  "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": "79 S. E., 690",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 N. C., 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272100
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/163/0431-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 1933,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2071840867942494
    },
    "sha256": "ab3ec67babe85620fa89dbde828aad785583542cbd85491126e0dc2ad9961dac",
    "simhash": "1:bf2eb570ab24350a",
    "word_count": 333
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:33.288027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NAOMI ELMORE v. DUDLEY SHOALS COTTON MILLS COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bek CueiaM.\nOn controverted issues of fact, the jury has found in favor of the plaintiff. The case was tried in substantial conformity to the principles of law applicable and the authoritative decisions on the subject. We have found no ruling or action on the part of the learned trial judge which we apprehend should be held for reversible error. Hence, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nThe motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is without controlling merit, and must be overruled as not meeting the requirements laid down for such motions in Johnson v. R. R., 163 N. C., 431, 79 S. E., 690.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bek CueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Garswell & Ervin and John M. Robinson for plaintiff.",
      "J. F. Newell and J. N. McLain for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NAOMI ELMORE v. DUDLEY SHOALS COTTON MILLS COMPANY.\n(Filed 2 July, 1930.)\nAppeal by defendant from Shaw, J., at November Term, 1929, of MeckxeNbukg.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury occasioned by a revolving shaft, located in the basement of defendant\u2019s mill, catching plaintiff\u2019s clothing and injuring her severely.\nIt is admitted that on or about 1 October, 1915, the plaintiff, at that time a little girl about ten years of age, was injured in defendant\u2019s mill, but it is denied that she was in the employ of the defendant, or was permitted to work in the defendant\u2019s mill in violation of the State child labor law. Largely upon this question, with evidence pro and con, the case was made to turn in the court below.\nThe jury returned the following verdict:\n\u201c1. Was the plaintiff employed or permitted to work in defendant\u2019s mill, while under 12 years of age, as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c2. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c3. What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover ? Answer: $8,000.\u201d\nFrom a judgment on the verdict, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nGarswell & Ervin and John M. Robinson for plaintiff.\nJ. F. Newell and J. N. McLain for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0803-01",
  "first_page_order": 871,
  "last_page_order": 872
}