{
  "id": 8627286,
  "name": "RAEFORD WHITLEY v. HARRY L. WADE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitley v. Wade",
  "decision_date": "1960-01-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "707",
  "last_page": "708",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 N.C. 707"
    }
  ],
  "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": 193,
    "char_count": 2511,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "sha256": "eaa1c06fd231f9d0d37798e9f3321f8f77b084e44044e8f7fcfc40fe358d251f",
    "simhash": "1:f01c427ccf52bfc8",
    "word_count": 416
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:21.126874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RAEFORD WHITLEY v. HARRY L. WADE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peb Curiam.\nThis was a case for the twelve. The evidence was in sharp conflict \u2014 in fact, irreconcilably so. The jury accepted the plaintiff\u2019s version of how the collision occurred. We have carefully examined all the defendant\u2019s assignments of error and the exceptions on which they are based, and, in our opinion, they present no prejudicial error of sufficient magnitude to justify a new trial. Moreover, no new or novel question of law is involved in the appeal.\nIn the trial below there is in law\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peb Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. J. Wellons, Wood & Spence, Robert A. Spence for plaintiff.",
      "Smith, Leach, Anderson & Dor sett for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RAEFORD WHITLEY v. HARRY L. WADE.\n(Filed 14 January, 1960.)\nAppeal by defendant from Clark, J., March Term, 1959, of Johnston.\nThis action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover damages to his Ford automobile in the alleged sum of $1,480.00, resulting from a collision between said automobile and an Oldsmobile owned and operated by the defendant and caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant.\nThe collision occurred about 5:00 p.m. on 20 April 1958 on the highway leading from Wendell to Smithfield, at or near the intersection of the said highway with the highway leading from Clayton to Wilson. The plaintiff was traveling in a southerly direction on the dominant highway toward Smithfield; the defendant was traveling in an easterly direction toward Wilson and entered the Wendell-Smithfield road headed toward Wendell.\nThe defendant set up a cross-action in his answer for damages to his Oldsmobile in the sum of $1,034.66.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence tends to show that the defendant cut to his left before reaching the intersection of said roads and drove across a paved area in front of Barnes\u2019 Store and entered the dominant highway north of the intersection at an angle of about 45 degrees and drove into the path of plaintiff\u2019s automobile.\nThe defendant\u2019s evidence tends to show that he stopped at a stop sign placed on the servient highway about 30 feet from the intersection of the servient and dominant highways; that he stopped again before turning left at the intersection and then proceeded northwardly toward Wendell for about 90 feet on the dominant highway, when plaintiff approached him on the defendant\u2019s side of the road and hit the right front of his car resulting in substantial damages to both vehicles.\nThe jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,480.00. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and the defendant appeals, assigning error.\nE. J. Wellons, Wood & Spence, Robert A. Spence for plaintiff.\nSmith, Leach, Anderson & Dor sett for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0707-01",
  "first_page_order": 751,
  "last_page_order": 752
}