{
  "id": 8625712,
  "name": "MRS. LOUISE NEWELL v. J. G. NEWELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newell v. Newell",
  "decision_date": "1932-02-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "255",
  "last_page": "255",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 N.C. 255"
    }
  ],
  "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": "92 S. E., 353",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N. C., 530",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270881
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/173/0530-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 S. E., 274",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 N. C., 606",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654324
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/180/0606-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 108,
    "char_count": 1154,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.48,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20725146523986535
    },
    "sha256": "84ad9accb1117f253e443f6cdecec87d67bfe56af3b5dabb9f64372290ea4b10",
    "simhash": "1:437063dae61697f0",
    "word_count": 190
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.445618+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. LOUISE NEWELL v. J. G. NEWELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nConceding, without deciding, that it was error to continue to the hearing plaintiff\u2019s motion for alimony pendente lile, nevertheless, in the absence of a sufficient showing, which perhaps may yet be made, the refusal to allow the motion is not cause for appellate interference. Hennis v. Hennis, 180 N. C., 606, 105 S. E., 274; Easely v. Easely, 173 N. C., 530, 92 S. E., 353.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Newitt for plaintiff.",
      "J. F. Dewell-and George W. Wilson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. LOUISE NEWELL v. J. G. NEWELL.\n(Filed 17 February, 1932.)\nAppeal and Error J c \u2014 Order continuing motion for alimony pendente lite to hearing held not subject to appellate interference.\nAn order continuing a wife\u2019s motion for alimony pendente Ute to the hearing without prejudice to either party is held not to be subject to appellate interference.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Gowper, Special Judge, at September Term, 1931, of MeckleNbueg.\nCivil action for divorce a mensa et thoro, and for alimony pendente lite. 0. S., 1666.\nFrom an order continuing plaintiff\u2019s motion for alimony to the hearing, without prejudice to either party, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nJohn Newitt for plaintiff.\nJ. F. Dewell-and George W. Wilson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0255-01",
  "first_page_order": 321,
  "last_page_order": 321
}