{
  "id": 8624602,
  "name": "G. W. BRADDY v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Braddy v. City of Winston-Salem",
  "decision_date": "1931-07-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "301",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 N.C. 301"
    }
  ],
  "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": "102 S. E., 505",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N. C., 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655821
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/179/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 S. E., 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N. C., 723",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654515
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/186/0723-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 S. E., 409",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N. C., 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618326
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0139-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S. E., 146",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614687
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0043-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S. E., 169",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 379",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217853
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0379-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 1773,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1827704069855372e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5890044168598246
    },
    "sha256": "a69fd0876858ebbb0fbc2268416d604f69f0b5c5d67784c7e1677a2adeb0076a",
    "simhash": "1:c5959997191c9599",
    "word_count": 316
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863450+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "G. W. BRADDY v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nPlaintiff assails tbe validity of tbe city ordinance which forbids tbe erection of a filling station on bis lot. While tbe matter was pending, and before bearing in tbe Superior Court, another ordinance was adopted which is also pleaded in bar of plaintiff\u2019s right to tbe remedy sought. Without undertaking a minute analysis of these ordinances as applicable to plaintiff\u2019s lot, which would serve no useful purpose as a precedent or otherwise, suffice it to say tbe application for writ of mandamus was properly denied for want of a clear showing of right on tbe part of tbe plaintiff to demand it. Hayes v. Benton, 193 N. C., 379, 137 S. E., 169. Mandamus lies only to enforce a clear legal right. Cody v. Barrett, 200 N. C., 43, 156 S. E., 146; Umstead v. Board of Elections, 192 N. C., 139, 134 S. E., 409; Person v. Doughton, 186 N. C., 723, 120 S. E., 481. In some respects, tbe case of Refining Co. v. McKernan, 179 N. C., 314, 102 S. E., 505, is not unlike tbe one at bar.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George TF. Braddy for plaintiff.",
      "Parris & Deal for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "G. W. BRADDY v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM et al.\n(Filed 2 July, 1931.)\nMandamus A b \u2014 Mandamus lies only to enforce clear legal right.\nMandamus lies only to enforce a clear legal right, and the writ will be denied when the application therefor fails to show this right on the part of the plaintiff demanding it.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Finley, J., at Chambers in Winston-Salem, 1 August, 1930. From Eobsyth.\nApplication for writ of mandamus to require tbe respondents to issue to tbe plaintiff a building permit to erect a filling station on a lot owned by him in tbe city of Winston-Salem.\nFrom an order denying application for writ of mandamus and dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nGeorge TF. Braddy for plaintiff.\nParris & Deal for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 375,
  "last_page_order": 375
}