{
  "id": 8628343,
  "name": "R. E. MARTIN v. LESTER BOYD et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Boyd",
  "decision_date": "1936-11-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "662",
  "last_page": "663",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 662"
    }
  ],
  "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": "11 S. E., 520",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 728",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652096
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0728-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 S. E., 375",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 185",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217744
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0185-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 127,
    "char_count": 1281,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072956763116305
    },
    "sha256": "b3957588029599387dc248776e6d891286cbeaad47ca427dcfbed5c0b1dbcaf5",
    "simhash": "1:0f071b4c7db5376f",
    "word_count": 218
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. E. MARTIN v. LESTER BOYD et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe trial court instructed the jury that under the facts in the instant case, the defendants did not have the right to shoot down plaintiff\u2019s tire in order to stop him. Exception.\nDefendants say that had they been armed with process, this right would have existed, ergo the mere fact that they were not armed with process would not make their conduct unlawful. The conclusion is a non sequitur. Holloway v. Moser, 193 N. C., 185, 136 S. E., 375. The defendants were outside the territory in which they are authorized to arrest without warrant. S. v. Sigman, 106 N. C., 728, 11 S. E., 520.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. A. Tarlion and Burke & Burke for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Zei> V. Turlington and Lewis & Lewis for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. E. MARTIN v. LESTER BOYD et al.\n(Filed 4 November, 1936.)\nArrest B a\u2014\nOfficers attempting to make an arrest without a warrant outside the district in which they are authorized to arrest without a warrant are liable in damages for wrongful assault in shooting plaintiff's tire in order to stop him.\nAppeal by defendants from Alley, J., at March Term, 1936, of IREDELL.\nCivil action to recover damages for wrongful assault.\nYerdict and judgment for plaintiff, damages being assessed at $200.00, from which the defendants appeal, assigning errors.\nA. A. Tarlion and Burke & Burke for plaintiff, appellee.\nZei> V. Turlington and Lewis & Lewis for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0662-01",
  "first_page_order": 728,
  "last_page_order": 729
}