{
  "id": 8622565,
  "name": "VIRGINIA N. NOWELL v. J. WALTER NEAL and ALFRED T. HAMILTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Nowell v. Neal",
  "decision_date": "1955-11-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "175",
  "last_page": "175",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 N.C. 175"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1717,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "sha256": "3a5f4a80d2038b183b297023821b5d4bee4df0bc61e94ba1c595591444f2e319",
    "simhash": "1:86a7a2eaf5643939",
    "word_count": 269
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:50.387183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VIRGINIA N. NOWELL v. J. WALTER NEAL and ALFRED T. HAMILTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Cueiam.\nAfter a protracted trial, involving the consideration of voluminous testimony, the jury resolved the controversial (first) issue in favor of defendant Neal. Careful consideration of plaintiff\u2019s assignments of error, brought forward and argued in the brief filed in her behalf, discloses no error of law deemed of sufficient prejudicial effect to warrant a new trial. Hence, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Vaughan S. Winborne, John A. Robertson, and Samuel Pretlow Win-borne for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dorsett for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VIRGINIA N. NOWELL v. J. WALTER NEAL and ALFRED T. HAMILTON.\n(Filed 23 November, 1955.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Huskins, Special J., May Term, 1955, of Ware.\nCivil action for damages on account of personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendants, physicians and surgeons, in advising, and in the performance of, an operation, and in failure to render proper post-operation care.\nDuring the progress of the trial, judgment of voluntary nonsuit was entered as to defendant Hamilton.\nThe court overruled motions for judgment of involuntary nonsuit as to defendant Neal. The first issue submitted to the jury was: \u201c1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, Dr. J. Walter Neal, as alleged in the Complaint?\u201d The jury answered this issue \u201cNo,\u201d and therefore did not consider the issue relating to damages.\nJudgment in favor of defendant Neal was entered in accordance with the jury\u2019s verdict. Plaintiff excepted and appealed, the principal assignments of error relating to rulings as to the admission and exclusion of evidence and to the court\u2019s instructions to the jury.\nVaughan S. Winborne, John A. Robertson, and Samuel Pretlow Win-borne for plaintiff, appellant.\nSmith, Leach, Anderson & Dorsett for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0175-01",
  "first_page_order": 215,
  "last_page_order": 215
}