{
  "id": 8630221,
  "name": "MARY WEBB v. S. V. TOMLINSON et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Webb v. Tomlinson",
  "decision_date": "1932-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "860",
  "last_page": "861",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 N.C. 860"
    }
  ],
  "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": "154 S. E., 69",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 154",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8595736
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0154-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S. E., 188",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 654",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625377
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0654-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 117,
    "char_count": 1305,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9223308708774197e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7331581879870216
    },
    "sha256": "9de00101bea649b9b16f76469460a089e6364363986f5b082579cbfa2821acc8",
    "simhash": "1:6c8f4fc3bebb0f2b",
    "word_count": 216
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.445618+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARY WEBB v. S. V. TOMLINSON et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThe evidence on the mooted question as to whether the deceased was an employee or an independent contractor is susceptible of either interpretation. The findings of the Industrial Commission, therefore, are conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. Parrish v. Armour Co., 200 N. C., 654, 158 S. E., 188; Rice v. Panel Co., 199 N. C., 154, 154 S. E., 69.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for plaintiff.",
      "Manly, Hendren & Womble for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY WEBB v. S. V. TOMLINSON et al.\n(Filed 15 June, 1932.)\nAppeal by defendants from Moore, J., at March Special Term, 1932, of Wilkes.\u2019\nProceedings under Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act by dependents of Charley Webb, deceased, a woodcutter, when he was injured, 26 February, 1930, from which injury he subsequently died.\nThe hearing Commissioner found that the deceased was employed by the defendants .and that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. The defendants contend that the deceased was an independent contractor and not an employee.\nOn appeal to the full Commission the award of the hearing Commissioner was upheld. And on appeal to the Superior Court the award of the full Commission was affirmed.\nDefendants appeal, alleging that there is no evidence to support the findings that deceased was an employee of the defendants.\nNo counsel for plaintiff.\nManly, Hendren & Womble for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0860-01",
  "first_page_order": 926,
  "last_page_order": 927
}