{
  "id": 8618539,
  "name": "CRAIG CAMPO, by His Next Friend, MRS. ANNIE CAMPO, v. S. H. KRESS & COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Campo ex rel. Campo v. S. H. Kress & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1935-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "816",
  "last_page": "817",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 816"
    }
  ],
  "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": "122 N. C., 1007",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8663384
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/1007-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 N. C., 658",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11255204
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/174/0658-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N. C., 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8690845
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0226-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1709,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2071950912968285
    },
    "sha256": "7f2d573f3665297d100046b299ac7cb0c5b38aaa4aa8ef492aad6c1324e594ef",
    "simhash": "1:86501ff0d9abf0b3",
    "word_count": 289
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CRAIG CAMPO, by His Next Friend, MRS. ANNIE CAMPO, v. S. H. KRESS & COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe jury by their verdict found that the defendant unlawfully arrested and wrongfully made an assault upon the plaintiff and assessed his damages at $2,250. From judgment in accord with the verdict the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\nThe defendant made three assignments of error, namely, (1) that the court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidence, (2) that the court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that the same was contrary to and unsupported by the evidence, and (3) that the court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict on the fourth issue on tbe ground tbat tbe damages awarded were excessive. It appears from tbe record tbat tbe action of tbe court in denying tbe motions of tbe appellant was taken in eacb instance in tbe exercise of judicial discretion, and, for tbat reason, are not reviewable. Carson v. Dellinger, 90 N. C., 226; Hoke v. Whisnant, 174 N. C., 658; Benton v. R. R., 122 N. C., 1007 (1009), and cases there cited.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carswell & Erpin for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Cansler & Gamier and R. M. Gray, Jr., for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CRAIG CAMPO, by His Next Friend, MRS. ANNIE CAMPO, v. S. H. KRESS & COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 November, 1935.)\nAppeal and Error J a \u2014 \u25a0\nDefendant moved to set aside tbe verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and for that the verdict was not supported by the evidence, and for that the damages awarded were excessive. Held: The discretionary rulings of the trial court denying the motions are not reviewable.\nAppeal by the defendant from McElroy, J., at April Term, 1935, of MecicleNbuRG.\nAffirmed.\nCarswell & Erpin for plaintiff, appellee.\nCansler & Gamier and R. M. Gray, Jr., for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0816-01",
  "first_page_order": 882,
  "last_page_order": 883
}