{
  "id": 8599737,
  "name": "STATE v. JOE C. HINES; and STATE v. DORA McPHAUL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hines",
  "decision_date": "1954-05-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "337",
  "last_page": "338",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "240 N.C. 337"
    }
  ],
  "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": "75 S.E. 2d 525",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "527"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 N.C. 595",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616283
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "599"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/237/0595-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 S.E. 2d 39",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "41"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627698
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "741"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/236/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1230,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20712018345471106
    },
    "sha256": "84c953abb92a582d2cdf04e8c9ae1661288840b20ad85c14d54e0f321a5f02bb",
    "simhash": "1:550be13a9cb5aa5a",
    "word_count": 201
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:25.593057+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOE C. HINES and STATE v. DORA McPHAUL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis case involves no new question requiring extended discussion. A careful examination of the record leaves us with the impression it is free of prejudicial error. See S. v. Rainey, 236 N.C. 738, 741, 74 S.E. 2d 39, 41; S. v. Honeycutt, 237 N.C. 595, 599, 75 S.E. 2d 525, 527. The verdict and judgments will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Love for the State.",
      "F. D. Hachett and Robert Weinstein for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOE C. HINES and STATE v. DORA McPHAUL.\n(Filed 19 May, 1954.)\nAppeal by defendants from Clifton L. Moore, J., and a jury, at January-February Criminal Term, 1954, of RobesoN.\nCriminal prosecutions commenced by two warrants issued out of the Robeson County Recorder\u2019s Court, St. Paul\u2019s District, charging each defendant with possession of nontax-paid whiskey for the purpose of sale. Prom convictions and judgments in the Recorder\u2019s Court, the defendants appealed to the Superior Court, where, after consolidation of the cases for the purpose of trial, they were tried de no.vo upon the warrants.\nTbe jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged as to each defendant, and from the judgments pronounced, both of them appealed to this Court.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Love for the State.\nF. D. Hachett and Robert Weinstein for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0337-02",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 382
}