{
  "id": 8624995,
  "name": "RALPH FRAZIER et ux v. SUBURBAN RULANE GAS COMPANY, INCORPORATED",
  "name_abbreviation": "Frazier v. Suburban Rulane Gas Co.",
  "decision_date": "1958-06-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "559",
  "last_page": "560",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "248 N.C. 559"
    }
  ],
  "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": "100 S.E. 2d 501",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "247 N.C. 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626526
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/247/0256-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 S.E. 2d 919",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 695",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626932
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0695-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 1935,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072410399216325
    },
    "sha256": "447bbf27872ce73f2e3abb67744e9e14b7084d8d3af9f5e820a9a0de77974197",
    "simhash": "1:804b4798c7927c68",
    "word_count": 325
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:24.992419+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RALPH FRAZIER et ux v. SUBURBAN RULANE GAS COMPANY, INCORPORATED."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe defendant appellant\u2019s brief in the original hearing contained the following: \u201cNo evidence was offered by the defendant . . . and the defendant appealed, seeking a reversal of the court below in submitting the case to the jury. . . . The appellant only appeals on the correctness of the court\u2019s ruling in submission of this case to the jury and is not seeking a new trial.\u201d\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence elicited by hypothetical question and answer was fully discussed in the original opinion. If the defendant\u2019s exception to the question and answer were valid they would entitle it not to a reversal, but to a new trial which its attorney of record says it does not want.\nThis Court has said many times over that on motion for nonsuit all the evidence in the case, both competent and incompetent, must be considered and given weight for reasons stated in Early v. Eley, 243 N.C. 695, 91 S.E. 2d 919, and the many cases there cited. After due consideration, no reason appears why the former decision should be disturbed. The defendant will pay the costs.\nPetition Dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Larry S. Moore for defendant, petitioner.",
      "Max F. Ferree, W. L. Osteen, W. H. McElwee for plaintiff, respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RALPH FRAZIER et ux v. SUBURBAN RULANE GAS COMPANY, INCORPORATED.\n(Filed 4 June, 1958.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 51\u2014\nBoth competent and incompetent evidence must be considered on appeal in determining- the sufficiency of the evidence to overrule nonsuit.\nPetition by defendant to rehear the above-entitled cause which was decided by this Court on November 27, 1957, and is reported in 247 N.C. 256, 100 S.E. 2d 501.\nThe petition was allowed and briefs were invited on two questions: (1) In answering a hypothetical question, did the expert witness base his opinion upon assumed facts not in evidence? (2) If such evidence should be held to be incompetent or without probative value, is there enough evidence left to carry the case to the jury?\nLarry S. Moore for defendant, petitioner.\nMax F. Ferree, W. L. Osteen, W. H. McElwee for plaintiff, respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0559-02",
  "first_page_order": 601,
  "last_page_order": 602
}