{
  "id": 8623756,
  "name": "RENA WARREN v. PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Warren v. Pilot Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1941-03-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "368",
  "last_page": "369",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "219 N.C. 368"
    }
  ],
  "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": "217 N. C., 705",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616734
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/217/0705-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 N. C., 402",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629922
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/215/0402-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S. E., 293",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609932
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0354-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1898,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.018548555271856e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5037183635030459
    },
    "sha256": "80c00ff6f9809f5de8ef3f3a4c62559b8e17edf9e48601338cd9dd6ff70e927f",
    "simhash": "1:dd7852c761c58fe2",
    "word_count": 327
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:18.105136+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Devin, J., dissents for the reasons stated in former appeal.",
      "Clarkson and Sea well, JJ., concur in dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "RENA WARREN v. PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis is the fourth appeal in this case. Former appeals are reported in 212 N. C., 354, 193 S. E., 293; 215 N. C., 402, 2 S. E. (2d), 17; and 217 N. O., 705, 9 S. E. (2d), 479, where the material facts are set forth.\nThe substantive evidence tending to show the circumstances under which deceased met his death offered in the trial below is substantially the same as that appearing in the record on the last appeal. There is no material variance. This evidence, considered in the light most favorable to tbe plaintiff, tends to show that the deceased suffered death as a result of a gunshot wound intentionally inflicted by another. If believed and accepted by the jury, when considered in connection with such evidence as tendered to contradict the same and to impeach the witness, it was such as to require a finding favorable to the defendant. The peremptory instruction given was in accord with the opinion in the former appeal reported in 217 N. C., 705, 9 S. E. (2d), 479.\nIn the judgment below there is\nNo error.\nDevin, J., dissents for the reasons stated in former appeal.\nClarkson and Sea well, JJ., concur in dissent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith, Wharton & Hudgins and J. B. James for defendant, appellee.",
      "Albion Dunn for plaintiff, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RENA WARREN v. PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 26 March, 1941.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 49a\u2014\nWhen the evidence upon the subsequent hearing is substantially the same as that considered upon the former appeal, a peremptory instruction given in accord with the opinion in the former appeal will not be held for error.\nDevin, J\u201e dissents for the reasons stated in former appeal.\nClarkson and Sea well, JJ., concur in dissent.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Hamilton, Special Judge, at November Term, 1940, of Pitt.\nAffirmed.\nCivil action to recover on double indemnity provision of a life insurance policy.\nFrom judgment on verdict for defendant plaintiff appeals.\nSmith, Wharton & Hudgins and J. B. James for defendant, appellee.\nAlbion Dunn for plaintiff, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0368-01",
  "first_page_order": 410,
  "last_page_order": 411
}