{
  "id": 8622375,
  "name": "EUGENE CARSON, Minor, by his Next Friend, MYRTLE CARSON v. ESPER DEDMON and GASTON CLARK WALL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carson ex rel. Carson v. Dedmon",
  "decision_date": "1960-09-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "62",
  "last_page": "63",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 N.C. 62"
    }
  ],
  "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": 131,
    "char_count": 1320,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.569,
    "sha256": "7114690bcd1a482d76084099957123f6d7c33cf7642d7cb42a14155ddc1e2fa2",
    "simhash": "1:16253aef26078469",
    "word_count": 208
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:38.064481+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "EUGENE CARSON, Minor, by his Next Friend, MYRTLE CARSON v ESPER DEDMON and GASTON CLARK WALL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pek Cueiam:\nThe jury resolved the issues of fact against the appellant Wall. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings. The court\u2019s rulings and charge are in accordance with established law.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pek Cueiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. 0. Ridings, Jack M. Freeman, Stover P. Dunagan, for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "A. Clyde Tomblin, for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EUGENE CARSON, Minor, by his Next Friend, MYRTLE CARSON v ESPER DEDMON and GASTON CLARK WALL.\n(Filed 21 September, 1960.)\nAppeal by defendant Wall from McLean, J., January 1960 Term, Rutherford Superior Court.\nCivil action for personal injury sustained in a collision between automobiles owned and driven by the defendants. The plaintiff was a passenger in the Wall vehicle. The collision occurred on a one-way bridge over Floyd\u2019s Creek in Rutherford County. The plaintiff alleged, and offered evidence tending to show actionable negligence on the part of each of the defendants and that as a result thereof he sustained- injuries and damages.\nEach defendant denied negligence, claiming he was first on the bridge, and that the other was at fault. Motions for nonsuit were overruled. Dedmon introduced evidence; Walt did not.\n\u25a0\u25a0 The court submitted separate issues of negligence which the jury answered in favor of Dedmon and against Wall. From the judgment on-the verdipt, Wall appealed.\nC. 0. Ridings, Jack M. Freeman, Stover P. Dunagan, for plaintiff, appellee.\nA. Clyde Tomblin, for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0062-02",
  "first_page_order": 102,
  "last_page_order": 103
}