{
  "id": 8574061,
  "name": "STATE v. ROBERT BLOW",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Blow",
  "decision_date": "1964-03-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "467",
  "last_page": "467",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "261 N.C. 467"
    }
  ],
  "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": 134,
    "char_count": 1321,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.589,
    "sha256": "0107d6fbd6a722724405efe7d1bb991ae39cdd47a66e52648ed5971028c518d2",
    "simhash": "1:3ac9ff9c66976c44",
    "word_count": 221
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:45.776989+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ROBERT BLOW."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe State\u2019s evidence against this defendant was substantially the same as the evidence in the case of S. v. Davis, ante, 463.\nThe defendant\u2019s assignments of error purport to raise the same questions raised in the above case. The trial, verdict and judgment entered in this case will be upheld on authority of the opinion in S. v. Davis, supra.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Ralph Moody ,for the State.",
      "Theaoseus T. Clayton, W.. 0. Warner, Samuel S. Mitchell, Floyd B. McKissick for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ROBERT BLOW.\n(Filed 18 March 1964.)\nAppeal by defendant from Parker, J., October Criminal Session 1963 of Halifax.\nThe defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging him with a violation of the provisions of G.S. 14-134, in that he unlawfully trespassed upon the premises of the Plantation Restaurant at Enfield, North Carolina. The restaurant is owned and operated by William R. Davis, the prosecuting witness, who also owns the Enfield Motel located about 50 feet north of the restaurant on the same side of Highway 301. The restaurant serves white people only and there is a sign to that effect at the entrance thereof.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the bill of indictment. From the judgment imposed, the defendant appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Ralph Moody ,for the State.\nTheaoseus T. Clayton, W.. 0. Warner, Samuel S. Mitchell, Floyd B. McKissick for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0467-01",
  "first_page_order": 507,
  "last_page_order": 507
}