{
  "id": 8575481,
  "name": "DOROTHY S. LOOMIS, Administratrix of the Estate of CECIL LeROY LOOMIS v. JOE ELMER TORRENCE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Loomis v. Torrence",
  "decision_date": "1964-04-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "741",
  "last_page": "742",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "261 N.C. 741"
    }
  ],
  "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": "130 S.E. 2d 540",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560727
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0381-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 153,
    "char_count": 1904,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20669853725062734
    },
    "sha256": "a819ca0856c5cec85a8abd2ba5d582435b0b9e11893b5a7ca8911cf8ca901eb7",
    "simhash": "1:cf6511559074195f",
    "word_count": 308
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:45.776989+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DOROTHY S. LOOMIS, Administratrix of the Estate of CECIL LeROY LOOMIS v. JOE ELMER TORRENCE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Cueiam.\nThis is the second trial of this case. In the first trial the jury answered the issues of negligence and contributory negligence in plaintiff\u2019s favor, and awarded her damages. On appeal by defendant, this Court awarded a new trial for error in excluding defendant\u2019s testimony of speed. Loomis v. Torrence, 259 N.C. 381, 130 S.E. 2d 540. In both trials the plaintiff and the defendant introduced evidence. On the former appeal and on this appeal, defendant assigns as error the denial of his motion for judgment of nonsuit made at the close of all the evidence. A careful study of the evidence in the instant case shows' that the court properly submitted the instant case to the jury.\nThe jury, under application of settled principles of law stated by us in case after case involving actions for damages resulting from automobile collisions in street intersections, resolved the issues of fact in the instant case against defendant. A careful examination of defendant\u2019s assignments of error in the instant case discloses no new question requiring extended discussion. Neither reversible nor prejudicial error in the instant case has been made to appear. The verdict and judgment in the instant case will not be disturbed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kesler & Seay for defendant appellant.",
      "Clarence Kluttz and Lewis P. Hamlin, Jr., for plaintiff appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DOROTHY S. LOOMIS, Administratrix of the Estate of CECIL LeROY LOOMIS v. JOE ELMER TORRENCE.\n(Filed 29 April, 1964.)\nAppeal by defendant from Brock, S. J., January 1964 Session of Rowan.\nCivil action to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of her intestate, resulting from a collision between two automobiles in a street intersection in the city of Salisbury. The jury answered issues of negligence and contributory negligence in plaintiff's favor, and awarded damages in the amount of $27,000. From a judgment on the verdict, defendant appeals.\nKesler & Seay for defendant appellant.\nClarence Kluttz and Lewis P. Hamlin, Jr., for plaintiff appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0741-01",
  "first_page_order": 781,
  "last_page_order": 782
}