{
  "id": 8628596,
  "name": "MRS. JANIE WHITEHEAD v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitehead v. City of Charlotte",
  "decision_date": "1942-05-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "539",
  "last_page": "540",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 N.C. 539"
    }
  ],
  "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": "197 S. E., 151",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N. C., 660",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630066
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0660-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 121,
    "char_count": 1151,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2073010820321957
    },
    "sha256": "3bb19c07326d86bca0386e7d266a9d1d8f7eb9c7b3d9aa89cc4e65acba6a235f",
    "simhash": "1:45eb5142566c3b6a",
    "word_count": 192
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:36.695844+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. JANIE WHITEHEAD v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe plaintiff sued for the recovery of damages for an injury alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of defendant in permitting a defect in the street to remain unrepaired and in a dangerous condition. The plaintiff recovered a verdict, and -from the ensuing judgment the defendant appealed. Upon consideration of the appeal the Court was evenly divided \u2014 three to three \u2014 Justice Schenck not sitting. Therefore, the judgment of the court below stands affirmed, and this decision does not become a precedent. Smith v. Bottling Co., ante, 202, 19 S. E. (2d), 250; Adams v. Murphrey, ante, 165, 19 S. E. (2d), 250; Seay v. Ins. Co., 213 N. C., 660, 197 S. E., 151.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. F. Wellons and J. A. McRae for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Tilleil & Campbell for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. JANIE WHITEHEAD v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE.\n(Filed 6 May, 1942.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 38\u2014\nWhen the Supreme Court is evenly divided in opinion, one Justice not sitting, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed without becoming a precedent.\nAppeal by defendant from Burgwyn, Special Judge, at 13 October, 1941, Extra Term, of Mecklenburg.\nAffirmed.\nB. F. Wellons and J. A. McRae for plaintiff, appellee.\nTilleil & Campbell for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0539-02",
  "first_page_order": 575,
  "last_page_order": 576
}