{
  "id": 8627226,
  "name": "MRS. LOUISE NORRELL MALLARD v. F. M. BOHANNON, INC., Employer, and MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mallard v. F. M. Bohannon, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1942-04-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "227",
  "last_page": "227",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 N.C. 227"
    }
  ],
  "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": "220 N. C., 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11306587
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/220/0536-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 115,
    "char_count": 1170,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3342783691249953
    },
    "sha256": "177ac9a817c29095d811fce6a84e233b288c6eca1cf871ab9dae54c0dc477251",
    "simhash": "1:142874e794b7874a",
    "word_count": 190
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:36.695844+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. LOUISE NORRELL MALLARD v. F. M. BOHANNON, INC., Employer, and MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Barnhill, J.\nThe merits of the controversy involved on this appeal were fully debated on the original hearing. See Mallard v. Bohannon, 220 N. C., 536, and dissenting opinion at p. 545. A majority of the Court are now of the opinion that the rationale of the dissenting opinion should prevail.\nWhen the contract of employment is for services to be rendered exclusively outside the State of North Carolina and such services in fact are performed in their entirety elsewhere than in this State our Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. ch. 120, Public Laws 1929, as amended, has no application.\nPetition allowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Barnhill, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chas. J. Bloch and Boy L. Deal for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Hutchins \u25a0& Parleer, W. O. Ginter, and L. B. Carpenter for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. LOUISE NORRELL MALLARD v. F. M. BOHANNON, INC., Employer, and MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier.\n(Filed 29 April, 1942.)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 39c\u2014\nWhen the contract of employment is for services to be rendered exclusively outside this State and such services in fact are performed in their entirety outside its borders, our Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act has no application. Ch. 120, Public Laws 1929, as amended.\nON REHEARING.\nChas. J. Bloch and Boy L. Deal for plaintiff, appellee.\nHutchins \u25a0& Parleer, W. O. Ginter, and L. B. Carpenter for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0227-01",
  "first_page_order": 263,
  "last_page_order": 263
}