{
  "id": 8602125,
  "name": "STATE v. TOMMY FLOYD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Floyd",
  "decision_date": "1954-11-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "79",
  "last_page": "79",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "241 N.C. 79"
    }
  ],
  "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": "221 N.C. 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 750",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 2011,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3608438240779086e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6359252991197556
    },
    "sha256": "90615398f0411513ce380f967db2e2b16167453cc38c9e6355d8f403647ae222",
    "simhash": "1:1a0e4f6812bc3a74",
    "word_count": 307
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:40.140494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. TOMMY FLOYD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant failed to file his brief in this Court within the time required by Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 233 N.C. 750-751. Thereupon, the Attorney-General nioved that the appeal be dismissed and the judgment affirmed. Even so, he concedes frankly that he has not been inconvenienced by appellant\u2019s delay in filing his brief. But appellant\u2019s brief when filed did not comply with other provisions of Rule 28, including the following: \u201cSuch brief shall contain, properly numbered, the several grounds of exception and assignment of error with reference to printed pages of transcript, and the authorities relied on classified under each assignment . . .\u201d 221 N.C. 562-563.\nNo error appears on the face of the record proper. Moreover, careful consideration of appellant\u2019s exceptive assignments of error fails to disclose prejudicial error; and the assignments are not such as to call for analysis and discussion. The issue was primarily one of fact, the jury\u2019s verdict being adverse to defendant.\nShould the Attorney-General\u2019s motion be allowed ? It matters not, for in either event the judgment of the court below must be affirmed. It is so ordered.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and A ssistant Attorney-General Lo.ve for the State.",
      "Sam W. Miller for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. TOMMY FLOYD.\n(Filed 3 November, 1954.)\nAppeal by defendant from Fountain, 8. J., June Term, 1954, of RANDOLPH.\nTommy Floyd, defendant, and Jody R. Floyd, Ms brother, were charged in one warrant with unlawful possession, transportation and possession for the purpose of sale of approximately 72 gallons of nontax-paid intoxicating liquor. Trial in Randolph County Recorder\u2019s Court resulted in defendant\u2019s conviction, and from judgment pronounced he appealed to Superior Court. There, after jury trial on original warrant, the verdict was \u201cGuilty of possession and transportation of whiskey, as charged\u201d; and judgment was pronounced thereon. Defendant excepted and appealed, and assigns errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and A ssistant Attorney-General Lo.ve for the State.\nSam W. Miller for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0079-01",
  "first_page_order": 117,
  "last_page_order": 117
}