{
  "id": 8560270,
  "name": "W. R. RAY, Employee v. CITY OF RALEIGH FIRE DEPARTMENT, Self-Insurer, Employer",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ray v. City of Raleigh Fire Department",
  "decision_date": "1963-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "291",
  "last_page": "292",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "259 N.C. 291"
    }
  ],
  "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": "80 S.E. 2d 759",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 N.C. 668",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628224
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/239/0668-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 S.E. 2d 609",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612728
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0537-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 1816,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20614580232283813
    },
    "sha256": "7f1a4ed9185c18f8f62cbcaac3e86141e8d2c92407f35b9e62a66545866ed5fd",
    "simhash": "1:fa4b4bbc20babe42",
    "word_count": 295
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:17.750134+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. R. RAY, Employee v. CITY OF RALEIGH FIRE DEPARTMENT, Self-Insurer, Employer."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error does not present the legal question discussed in defendant\u2019s brief. Rader v. Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E. 2d 609; Glace v. Throwing Co., 239 N.C. 668, 80 S.E. 2d 759. Even so, it seems appropriate to say that, according to un-contradicted evidence, plaintiff was entitled to the award. The evidence indicates the award involves a doctor\u2019s bill of one hundred dollars and \u25a0a hospital bill of one hundred dollars.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul F. Smith for defendant appellant.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. R. RAY, Employee v. CITY OF RALEIGH FIRE DEPARTMENT, Self-Insurer, Employer.\n(Filed 17 April 1963.)\nAppeal by defendant from Copeland, Special Judge, November Assigned Non-Jury Civil Term 1962 of Wake.\nProceeding under Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nThe Hearing Commissioner, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law, made an award providing that defendant \u201cpay all medical bills incurred as a result of\u201d plaintiff's injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by defendant. The Full Commission adopted the Hearing Commissioner\u2019s findings of fact and conclusions of law and affirmed the award.\nThe judgment entered in superior court contains no reference to any of defendant\u2019s exceptions \u00a1to findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the Hearing Commissioner and .adopted by the Full Commission. It recites the matter was heard \u201con the record on appeal from the Industrial Commission\u201d and adjudges \u201cthat the opinion and award of the Industrial Commission in this case be and the same is in all respects sustained.\u201d Defendant excepted \u201c(t)o the foregoing judgment\u201d and appealed. The only assignment of error is in these words: \u201cThe appellant assigns as error the judgment of Judge Copeland for that the same is unsupported by the facts or the law.\u201d\nPaul F. Smith for defendant appellant.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0291-01",
  "first_page_order": 335,
  "last_page_order": 336
}