{ "id": 8625435, "name": "CARL LaNEVE v. THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, et al.", "name_abbreviation": "LaNeve v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.", "decision_date": "1934-10-31", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "281", "last_page": "282", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "207 N.C. 281" } ], "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": "159 S. E., 926", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "case_ids": [ 2026135 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/161/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 N. C., 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624928, 8624887 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0336-02", "/nc/201/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S. E., 767", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N. C., 833", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628770, 8628751 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0833-02", "/nc/201/0833-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S. E., 893", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N. C., 638", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616861 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0638-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S. E., 238", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N. C., 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217775 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 S. E., 681", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N. C., 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627001 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S. E., 116", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N. C., 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654547 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/158/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 S. E., 165", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 N. C., 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653481 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/189/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S. E., 254", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N. C., 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217759 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0028-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 214, "char_count": 2057, "ocr_confidence": 0.471, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.181100842601303e-08, "percentile": 0.42982872746635037 }, "sha256": "b34e29cc2130b306a44dfec85432495f4c6e0ff50dbd0be85abda0edf88c41d8", "simhash": "1:ef7a23c57ed5c51e", "word_count": 362 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CARL LaNEVE v. THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe petition for removal, besides showing the presence of the requisite jurisdictional amount, asserts a right of removal on the grounds of diverse citizenship, and alleges (1) fraudulent joinder of resident defendants, and (2) separable controversy.\nThe trial court held that the case was controlled by the line of decisions of which Cox v. Lumber Co., 193 N. C., 28, 136 S. E., 254, Johnson v. Lumber Co., 189 N. C., 81, 126 S. E., 165, and Rea v. Mirror Co., 158 N. C., 24, 73 S. E., 116, may be cited as fairly illustrative; while the appellant contends that the principles announced in Givens v. Mfg. Co., 196 N. C., 377, 145 S. E., 681, and Crisp v. Fibre Co., 193 N. C., 77, 136 S. E., 238, are more nearly applicable.\n\u2019Without \u201cthreshing oyer old straw,\u201d suffice it to say, appellant has not overcome the presumption against error. Bailey v. McKay, 198 N. C., 638, 152 S. E., 893. To prevail on appeal, he who alleges error must successfully handle the laboring oar. Poindexter v. R. R., 201 N. C., 833, 160 S. E., 767; Jackson v. Bell, 201 N. C., 336, 159 S. E., 926.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Morgan, Stamey & Ward and J ones & Ward for plaintiff.", "B. B. Williams for defendant A. & P. Company." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CARL LaNEVE v. THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, et al.\n(Filed 31 October, 1934.)\nAppeal and Error J d\u2014\nTlie burden is on appellant to overcome tbe presumption against Mm and show error in the judgment or order appealed from.\nAppeal by plaintiff from McFlroy, J., 12 June, 1934, at Chambers. From Haywood.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury caused by the bite of a tarantula while plaintiff was a customer in defendant\u2019s store, brought against the Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Arizona, and Homer Owen and Sam Owen, citizens and residents of Haywood County, N. C.\nMotion by nonresident corporate defendant to remove cause to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina for trial.\nMotion allowed, and plaintiff appeals.\nMorgan, Stamey & Ward and J ones & Ward for plaintiff.\nB. B. Williams for defendant A. & P. Company." }, "file_name": "0281-01", "first_page_order": 349, "last_page_order": 350 }