{
  "id": 8628719,
  "name": "STATE v. O. G. THOMAS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Thomas",
  "decision_date": "1939-03-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "181",
  "last_page": "182",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "215 N.C. 181"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 125,
    "char_count": 1231,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "sha256": "35cd32d51311bd7a06e8361f291036b8cc425dc143bbd4eee4f49aae97368ab9",
    "simhash": "1:dacc531e378a6e1b",
    "word_count": 208
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.554902+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Sci-ieNCK, DeviN, and Sea well, JJ., dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. O. G. THOMAS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CiARicsoN, J.\nThe present action is similar to that of S. v. Dixon, ante, 161. The principles set forth in that case are applicable to the present one.\nFor the reasons given, in that case, the judgment of the court is\nAffirmed.\nSci-ieNCK, DeviN, and Sea well, JJ., dissent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CiARicsoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Wettach for the State.",
      "Clayton L. Burwell, amicus curias.",
      "D. B. Smith for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. O. G. THOMAS.\n(Filed 1 March, 1939.)\nAppeal by the State from Burgwyn, Special Judge, at August Regular Criminal Term, 1938, of MeckleNbueg.\nAffirmed.\nDefendant, by warrant, was charged with the violation of the N. 0. Real Estate License Act (chapter 292, Public Laws of N. 0., 1937). From a conviction in the recorder\u2019s court of the city of Charlotte, he appealed to the Superior Court. Upon the return of the jury therein with a verdict of guilty, defendant moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that said N. 0. Real Estate License Act is unconstitutional. The judge below allowed the motion and entered an order arresting judgment to which the State excepted, assigned error and appealed to the Supreme Court. The State is permitted to appeal \u201cupon arrest of judgment.\u201d C. S., 4649 (4).\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Wettach for the State.\nClayton L. Burwell, amicus curias.\nD. B. Smith for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0181-01",
  "first_page_order": 247,
  "last_page_order": 248
}