{
  "id": 8620215,
  "name": "CHARLES J. AHRENS v. LUTHER C. ROBEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ahrens v. Robey",
  "decision_date": "1958-03-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "98",
  "last_page": "98",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "248 N.C. 98"
    }
  ],
  "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": "90 S.E. 2d 688",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 434",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625559
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0434-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 S.E. 2d 257",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 388",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622451
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0388-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 S.E. 2d 523",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 N.C. 713",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8632268
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0713-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S.E. 752",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N.C. 280",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625420
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0280-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 686",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N.C. 808",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628308
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0808-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 1680,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.618,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072047443692663
    },
    "sha256": "d1fcb4a4ce806957b5805bc0f6d1f2ff4aa0547caee03a94d7951daa4acc934c",
    "simhash": "1:be8ebd0c743f3c94",
    "word_count": 291
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:24.992419+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES J. AHRENS v. LUTHER C. ROBEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Curiam.\nThe discretionary ruling of the trial judge in setting aside the verdict as being contrary to the weight of the evidence is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of abuse of discretion. Here there is no evidence of such abuse. Therfore the appeal will be dismissed. Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N.C. 808, 161 S.E. 686; In re Will of Hargrove, 207 N.C. 280, 176 S.E. 752; Hawley v. Powell, 222 N.C. 713, 24 S.E. 2d 523; Ward v. Cruse, 234 N.C. 388, 67 S.E. 2d 257; Williams v. Stumpf, 243 N.C. 434, 90 S.E. 2d 688.\nAppeal Dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph C. Clontz, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Morgan, Byerly & Post and Dotson G. Palmer for defendant, ap-pellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES J. AHRENS v. LUTHER C. ROBEY\n(Filed 26 March, 1958)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 46\u2014\nThe discretionary ruling of the trial judge in setting aside the verdict as being contrary to the weight of the evidence is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of abuse of discretion.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Craven, Special Judge, at 16 September, 1957, Regular \u201cB\u201d Civil Term of Meciclenbuhg.\nCivil action for libel.\nIssues were submitted to and answered by the jury as follows:\n\u201c1. Did the defendant write concerning the plaintiff the words in substance, as alleged in the Complaint? Answer: YES.\n\u201c2. If so, were they true? Answer: NO.\n\u201c3. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $2,000.00.\u201d\nThe defendant, through counsel, moved the trial judge to set aside the verdict as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. The judge, \u201cin his discretion,\u201d allowed the motion and entered judgment setting the verdict aside and directing that the case be tried de novo. The plaintiff appeals.\nRalph C. Clontz, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.\nMorgan, Byerly & Post and Dotson G. Palmer for defendant, ap-pellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0098-01",
  "first_page_order": 140,
  "last_page_order": 140
}