{
  "id": 8625501,
  "name": "STATE v. VERNON R. WORLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Worley",
  "decision_date": "1957-05-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "202",
  "last_page": "202",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "246 N.C. 202"
    }
  ],
  "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": "147 S.E. 735",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N.C. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627190
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S.E. 2d 637",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8605643
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0294-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 1942,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.575,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29488224989178907
    },
    "sha256": "b4fe4a3dd5d64d841bfd00d020269ed9d685ded4a6623fdc2d67104e4dc4823b",
    "simhash": "1:561057fb6eaf2663",
    "word_count": 321
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:34.544387+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. VERNON R. WORLEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe record contains numerous exceptions. However, they have not been brought forward and assigned as error, as required by Rule 19, Section 3 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. 221 N.C. 554; Investment Co. v. Chemicals Laboratory, 233 N.C. 294, 63 S.E. 2d 637.\nThe appellant does have what purports to be assignments of error, but none of them is supported by an exception. This Court will not search through a record in an effort to determine whether or not it contains an exception or exceptions that will sustain assignments of error. Cecil v. Lumber Co., 197 N.C. 81, 147 S.E. 735.\nWe have examined the record. The verdict supports the judgment and no error of law appears on the face of the record. Judgment affirmed.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Patton and Assistant Attorney-General McGal-liard for the State.",
      "E. Reamuel Temple for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. VERNON R. WORLEY.\n(Filed 1 May, 1957.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 19\u2014\nExceptions must be brought forward and assigned as error. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 19(3).\n2. Same\u2014\nAssignments of error not supported by exceptions therein noted cannot be considered.\nAppeal by defendant from Hobgood, J., December Mixed Term 1956 Of JOHNSTON.\nThe defendant was originally tried and convicted upon a warrant returnable to the Recorder\u2019s Court of Johnston County charging him with the unlawful and willful operation of a motor vehicle on the public highways of the State in a reckless and careless manner and while under the influence of intoxicants or narcotics, this being his second offense, driving after license had been revoked, etc.\nFrom judgment rendered, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court where he was tried de novo on the original warrant. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, driving under the influence and careless and reckless driving.\nFrom the judgment imposed on the verdict, the defendant appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney-General Patton and Assistant Attorney-General McGal-liard for the State.\nE. Reamuel Temple for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0202-01",
  "first_page_order": 252,
  "last_page_order": 252
}