{
  "id": 8627526,
  "name": "NAOMI McM. LEDFORD, Admx., v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ledford v. City of Winston-Salem",
  "decision_date": "1947-01-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "698",
  "last_page": "699",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "227 N.C. 698"
    }
  ],
  "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": "219 N. C., 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625904,
        8625886
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0649-02",
        "/nc/219/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N. C., 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628416
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/221/0512-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 1959,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072829342560126
    },
    "sha256": "a96967b621374df972788188cf0af256f2b21f613a122bc2089cca0ac3560484",
    "simhash": "1:9ded059da5510839",
    "word_count": 322
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:04.384970+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NAOMI McM. LEDFORD, Admx., v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe scene of tbe present accident is tbe same as tbat appearing in tbe case of Dillon v. Winston-Salem, et al., reported in 221 N. C., 512, 20 S. E. (2d), 845, witb full description of tbe location, to wbieb reference may be bad to avoid repetition. Tbe essential and operative facts of tbe two cases are strikingly similar, except tbat in tbe Dillon Case plaintiff\u2019s intestate was a passenger directing tbe operation of tbe automobile in wbieb be was riding, while bere plaintiff\u2019s intestate was tbe driver of tbe death car. Both cases are controlled by tbe same principles of law, and both were dismissed on demurrer to the evidence in tbe Superior Court. Tbe judgment in tbe Dillon Case was affirmed on appeal, and a like result must follow bere. No useful purpose would be served by detailing again a parallel state of facts. Alberty v. Greensboro, 219 N. C., 649, 14 S. E. (2d), 635.\nRecognizing tbe pertinency of tbe Dillon decision, tbe plaintiff seeks to distinguish tbe subject case from tbat one, but tbe controlling facts are too nearly alike to warrant a different conclusion. Of course, there are differences in detail. These, however, are unimportant. This was tbe result reached in tbe Superior Court, and we are unable to say there is reversible error in tbe judgment.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hlledge <& Hayes and H. Bryce Parker for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Womble, Carlyle, Martin & Sandridge for defendant, City of Winston-Salem, appellee.",
      "Craige <\u00a3 Craige and Kerr Craige Ramsay for defendant, Winston-Salem Railway Co., appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NAOMI McM. LEDFORD, Admx., v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, et al.\n(Filed 31 January, 1947.)\nAepeal by plaintiff from Carr, J., at October Term, 1946, of Forsyth.\nCivil action to recover damages for death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of the defendants.\nFrom judgment of nonsuit entered at tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, she appeals, assigning errors.\nHlledge <& Hayes and H. Bryce Parker for plaintiff, appellant.\nWomble, Carlyle, Martin & Sandridge for defendant, City of Winston-Salem, appellee.\nCraige <\u00a3 Craige and Kerr Craige Ramsay for defendant, Winston-Salem Railway Co., appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0698-02",
  "first_page_order": 746,
  "last_page_order": 747
}