{
  "id": 8622743,
  "name": "STEDMAN B. SHEPARD, JR., v. LA GRANGE OIL & FUEL COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shepard v. La Grange Oil & Fuel Co.",
  "decision_date": "1955-10-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "762",
  "last_page": "763",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "242 N.C. 762"
    }
  ],
  "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": "81 S.E. 2d 657",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8597086
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 S.E. 876",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N.C. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271330
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/146/0361-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 S.E. 233",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N.C. 741",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628633
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0741-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S.E. 801",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N.C. 663",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11255207
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0663-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S.E. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N.C. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217692
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 S.E. 2d 919",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 N.C. 761",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619526
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/237/0761-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S.E. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N.C. 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0788-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 S.E. 302",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 N.C. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657757
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/164/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "562"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 265,
    "char_count": 3218,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.608,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6592115176103394e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6940068706708383
    },
    "sha256": "3c649d586ef2f4ca51f4fc5b40d01cee7a07aeddd23800f237da4ed7a2bba692",
    "simhash": "1:80ef7bcea268b54d",
    "word_count": 558
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:17.837681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STEDMAN B. SHEPARD, JR., v. LA GRANGE OIL & FUEL COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal for the reason that in the copy of appellant\u2019s brief mailed or delivered to appellee\u2019s counsel within the time prescribed by Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544, 562, the several grounds of exception and assignment of error had no reference to the pages of the transcript is allowed. This rule of court is mandatory, and will be enforced. Bradshaw v. Stansberry, 164 N.C. 356, 79 S.E. 302; Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126; S. v. Evans, 237 N.C. 761, 75 S.E. 2d 919.\nIn the instant case there are twenty-two assignments of error, all of the same tenor, of which the following may be taken as typical: \u201cFifteenth assignment: His Honor erred in charging the jury as follows: \u2018The same rule applies to the driver of the car in which the plaintiff was riding.\u2019 Which error is the basis of the 20th Exception?\u201d Where can the 20th Exception be found? This Court said in Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N.C. 428, 137 S.E. 175: \u201cWe have frequently long records to read and re-read, and unless the statute is followed, and seriatim exceptions to the charge are made and numbered, with assignments of error numbered, and giving record page, it is tedious and burdensome to \u2018fish out\u2019 of the charge the numerous assignments of error.\u201d It would seem that the assignments of error do not comply with Rule 19 (3) and Rule 21 of Practice in this Court. Taylor v. Hayes, 172 N.C. 663, 90 S.E. 801; Baker v. Clayton, 202 N.C. 741, 164 S.E. 233. See also: Lee v. Baird, 146 N.C. 361, 59 S.E. 876.\nNotwithstanding the condition of the record, we have examined the record and plaintiff\u2019s assignments of error \u2014 the course pursued in Taylor v. Hayes, supra\u2014and have discovered no valid reason for disturbing the judgment of the Superior Court. The plaintiff has not successfully carried the burden of showing prejudicial error amounting to the denial of some substantial right. Johnson v. Heath, 240 N.C. 255, 81 S.E. 2d 657.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Elbert A. Brown, W. K. Rhodes, Jr., and I. C. Wright for Plaintiff, Appellant.",
      "James & James for Defendant, Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STEDMAN B. SHEPARD, JR., v. LA GRANGE OIL & FUEL COMPANY.\n(Filed 19 October, 1955.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 27\u2014\nWhere tbe several grounds of exception and assignment of error in appellant\u2019s brief mailed or delivered to appellee\u2019s counsel fail to refer to tbe pertinent pages of tbe transcript, appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the mandatory rule of court will be allowed. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in tbe Supreme Court.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 23\u2014\nThe assignments of error should indicate tbe page of tbe trancript upon which tbe exception referred to is to be found. Rule 19 (3) and Rule 21 of the Rules of Practice in tbe Supreme Court.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sink, Emergency Judge, May-June Term 1955 of New Hanover.\nCivil action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision.\nThe jury found by its verdict that the plaintiff was not injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint. Whereupon judgment was entered that the plaintiff take nothing, from which judgment the plaintiff appealed, assigning error.\nElbert A. Brown, W. K. Rhodes, Jr., and I. C. Wright for Plaintiff, Appellant.\nJames & James for Defendant, Appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0762-01",
  "first_page_order": 804,
  "last_page_order": 805
}