{
  "id": 8629313,
  "name": "SUDIE MERRELL, Administratrix, v. SOUTHBOUND RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Merrell v. Southbound Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1932-02-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "825",
  "last_page": "825",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 N.C. 825"
    }
  ],
  "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": "70 S. E., 845",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 N. C., 408",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652536
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/154/0408-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 S. E., 827",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 N. C., 147",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653382
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/187/0147-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 113,
    "char_count": 919,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20731536857940366
    },
    "sha256": "b32bb3749079280dc96ea8d5c1e81f252bed462aa49c7f92dae1f54533bbe421",
    "simhash": "1:dba1a4c3739bc2de",
    "word_count": 157
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.445618+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SUDIE MERRELL, Administratrix, v. SOUTHBOUND RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "' Pee Cueiam.\nThe case was properly nonsuited on authority of Davis v. R. R., 187 N. C., 147, 120 S. E., 827, and Exum v. R. R., 154 N. C., 408, 70 S. E., 845, as the facts bring it within the principles there announced.\nIt would serve no useful purpose to set out the evidence in detail, as the principal question presented is its sufficiency to carry the case to the jury, and we agree with the trial court that it is wanting in the requisite probative value to warrant a recovery for the plaintiff.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "' Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wallace & Wall for plaintiff.",
      "Parrish & Deal and Craige & Craige for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SUDIE MERRELL, Administratrix, v. SOUTHBOUND RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 17 February, 1932.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Clement, J., at April Term, 1931, of Foesyth.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged wrongful death.\nFrom a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, she appeals, assigning errors.\nWallace & Wall for plaintiff.\nParrish & Deal and Craige & Craige for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0825-01",
  "first_page_order": 891,
  "last_page_order": 891
}