{
  "id": 8629483,
  "name": "CARRIE BLACKWELL v. MORRIS S. HAWKINS et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Blackwell v. Hawkins",
  "decision_date": "1935-02-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "874",
  "last_page": "875",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 874"
    }
  ],
  "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": "147 S. E., 15",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 726",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629208
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0726-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S. E., 555",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 489",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627248
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0489-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 1433,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.335621857320048e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7915967301568547
    },
    "sha256": "7cd6bb559831456960f788b0903ddb1548d29d5cca59b9e0732f9f23d16a707f",
    "simhash": "1:7a2251cc755e03db",
    "word_count": 245
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CARRIE BLACKWELL v. MORRIS S. HAWKINS et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAffirmed on authority of the principles announced in Hinnant v. R. R., 202 N. C., 489, 163 S. E., 555.\nThe case of Dickey v. R. R., 196 N. C., 726, 147 S. E., 15, is distinguishable in that the defendant\u2019s train was there blocking the street in violation of a town ordinance.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. L. Swain for plaintiff.",
      "MacLean & Rodman for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CARRIE BLACKWELL v. MORRIS S. HAWKINS et al.\n(Filed 27 February, 1935.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Moore, Special Judge, at November Special Term, 1934, of MaetiN.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury.\nThe facts are these: Plaintiff, a guest in the automobile of John Little, was returning from a dance in Plymouth to her home in Wil-liamston about the hour of 1:30 a.m., 27 January, 1934. The night was dark, cloudy, and foggy. The automobile was being operated at a speed of 20 or 25 miles per hour. A freight train operated by the defendant receivers, on approaching the intersecting tracks of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, stopped momentarily, as it was required to do before passing over the intersecting line, thus blocking the highway upon which plaintiff and her companion were traveling. The automobile ran into the freight car standing astride the road, and plaintiff was injured. The driver did not see the train until within about five feet of it.\nFrom a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, she appeals.\nH. L. Swain for plaintiff.\nMacLean & Rodman for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0874-01",
  "first_page_order": 942,
  "last_page_order": 943
}