{
  "id": 11310088,
  "name": "MISS MARTHA JONES v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.",
  "decision_date": "1941-09-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "817",
  "last_page": "817",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "220 N.C. 817"
    }
  ],
  "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": "218 N. C., 732",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624560
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/218/0732-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S. E., 386",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N. C., 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626767
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0130-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 116,
    "char_count": 1018,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23964621103392514
    },
    "sha256": "2f3a801609bbd4d3003f18239d9b09c85ab540f1a95fab0fd8d9c84d06aed6ec",
    "simhash": "1:ed34662526ddb1f5",
    "word_count": 175
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:04.432821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MISS MARTHA JONES v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cukiam.\nPlaintiff instituted ber action to recover damages for personal injury due to a fall in tbe defendant\u2019s store. This, she alleged, was due to an accumulation of oil or grease on the floor. At the conclusion of all the evidence defendant renewed its motion for judgment of nonsuit, and this was allowed, and judgment rendered dismissing the action. Plaintiff appealed.\nAn examination of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, as shown by the record, leads us to the conclusion that its probative force does not measure up to that held sufficient to go to the jury in Anderson v. Amusement Co., 213 N. C., 130, 195 S. E., 386, but that the case is rather governed by the decision in Pratt v. Tea Co., 218 N. C., 732, 12 S. E. (2d), 242.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cukiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bon C. Young for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Williams & Coche for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MISS MARTHA JONES v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY.\n(Filed 24 September, 1941.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bobbitt, J., at May Term, 1941, of BuNcombe.\nAffirmed.\nBon C. Young for plaintiff, appellant.\nWilliams & Coche for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0817-01",
  "first_page_order": 861,
  "last_page_order": 861
}