{
  "id": 11304695,
  "name": "L. L. RHOADES and Wife, MITTIE RHOADES, v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE, a Municipal Corporation",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rhoades v. City of Asheville",
  "decision_date": "1941-11-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "443",
  "last_page": "444",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "220 N.C. 443"
    }
  ],
  "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": "155 S. E., 924",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0788-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N. C., 808",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 1806,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3061430802636296e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6233865372073816
    },
    "sha256": "7dc810986d4ec99156c6b24296e3e7a2408e5e908d2c2df6a154a20be27de68b",
    "simhash": "1:7bb100dd500084c3",
    "word_count": 320
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:04.432821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. L. RHOADES and Wife, MITTIE RHOADES, v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE, a Municipal Corporation."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nIt appears in record on this appeal that the case on appeal, as served by appellant, by stipulation of counsel for parties to tbe action, constitutes tbe case on appeal, and that, in tbe case on appeal as so constituted, all tbe evidence is set out printed in mass in form of questions and answers, and not in narrative form as required by Rule 19 (4) of tbe Rules of Practice in tbe Supreme Court, 213 N. C., 808.\nIt further appears that one of tbe assignments of error is to tbe refusal of tbe court to grant motion for judgment as of nonsuit.\nTbe rule provides that \u201cif the case on appeal is settled by agreement of counsel, or tbe statement of tbe appellant becomes tbe case on appeal, and tbe rule is not complied with, or tbe appeal is from a judgment of nonsuit, tbe appeal will be dismissed.\u201d\nIn accordance therewith, and under authority of Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 155 S. E., 924, to which attention is called, tbe appeal is\nDismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. Kenneth Lee for plaintiffs, appellees.",
      "Philip G. Cocke, Jr., for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. L. RHOADES and Wife, MITTIE RHOADES, v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE, a Municipal Corporation.\n(Filed 26 November, 1941.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 20\u2014\nAppellant\u2019s statement became the case on appeal by stipulation of the parties. One of appellant\u2019s exceptions was to the refusal of the court to grant motion for judgment as of nonsuit. The appeal is dismissed for that all the evidence is set out in the case on appeal in mass in form of questions and answers, and not in narrative form as required by Rule 19 (4).\nAppeal by defendant from Bobbitt, J., at April Term, 1941, of BUNCOMBE.\nCivil action for recovery for water damage allegedly resulting from actionable negligence.\nFrom judgment on adverse verdict defendant appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.\nH. Kenneth Lee for plaintiffs, appellees.\nPhilip G. Cocke, Jr., for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0443-01",
  "first_page_order": 487,
  "last_page_order": 488
}