{
  "id": 8566679,
  "name": "RAY E. SIZEMORE v. DIVISION 1493 OF THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sizemore v. Division 1493 of the Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America",
  "decision_date": "1964-11-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "22",
  "last_page": "23",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "263 N.C. 22"
    }
  ],
  "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": "138 S.E. 2d 803",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 8,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3791,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "sha256": "92c279bbe3331dff7e4e4c2c0d19b2db6400e1f8e81843c5b1c6361f54aa8651",
    "simhash": "1:b76a80ca905961df",
    "word_count": 638
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:48.035422+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RAY E. SIZEMORE v. DIVISION 1493 OF THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nPlaintiff alleges a cause of action to recover damages for an alleged breach by the defendant association of the duties and obligations owed to him as a dues-paying member in good standing of defendant association under its constitution and bylaws and under the applicable provisions of the federal \u201cLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959,\u201d in that it failed to give him a full and fair hearing and failed to give him a right to exhaust his appeal remedies for grievances, when he was discharged as a driver by the Greyhound Bus Company upon a complaint filed against him by a person in West Virginia.\nDefendant made a special appearance and moved to quash the summons served upon it: this motion is almost verbatim with a similar motion made by it in the case of Sizemore v. D. V. Maroney and Division 1493, etc., ante, 14, 138 S.E. 2d 803. Plaintiff filed an answer to its special appearance and motion to dismiss almost verbatim with the one it filed in Sizemore v. Maroney, supra, with the exception of the references to Maroney. Plaintiff filed an affidavit in this action almost verbatim with the affidavit he filed in Sizemore v. Maroney, supra. The clerk of the superior court of Forsyth County rendered an order denying defendant association\u2019s motion and giving it 30 days within which to answer or otherwise plead: this order is practically verbatim with the order the clerk made in Sizemore v. Maroney, supra, denying a similar motion by defendant association.\nDefendant association appealed to the judge. Judge Olive, on the same day he entered an order in Sizemore v. Maroney, supra, rendered an order here in which he recites, among other things, \u201cit further appearing to the court upon the hearing that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was or is doing business in the State of North Carolina,\u201d and then ordered \u201cthat the motion of the defendant that service in this action be quashed be and the same is hereby allowed.\u201d\nPlaintiff assigns as errors the following recital in Judge Olive\u2019s order: \u201c* * * and it further appearing to the court upon the hearing that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was or is doing business in the State of North Carolina,\u201d and that the judge erred in entering and signing the order.\nDefendant association states in its brief: \u201cThis case and No. 390 [Sizemore v. Maroney, supra] are companion cases, the facts being substantially identical, except in case No. 390, D. V. Maroney, the president of the unincorporated defendant, is also a defendant.\u201d Defendant association\u2019s brief in the instant case in its material parts is identical with the brief it filed in case No. 390. The argument in the brief filed by plaintiff in the instant case in respect to whether defendant association was or is doing business in the State of North Carolina is practically identical with the argument on the same subject set forth in his brief which he filed in case No. 390.\nThe decision in the instant case is controlled by the decision in Sizemore v. Maroney, supra, filed this day, ante, 14, 138 S.E. 2d 803. Upon authority of that case, Judge Olive\u2019s order is vacated, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings as set forth in that case.\nError and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hatfield and Allman by Roy G. Hall, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.",
      "White, Grumpier, Powell, Pfefferkom & Green by James G. White for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RAY E. SIZEMORE v. DIVISION 1493 OF THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO.\n(Filed 25 November, 1964.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from an order of Olive, E. J., entered 13 April 1964 Civil Session of Forsyth, upon a special appearance and motion to dismiss by defendant association, quashing service in this action upon it.\nHatfield and Allman by Roy G. Hall, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nWhite, Grumpier, Powell, Pfefferkom & Green by James G. White for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0022-01",
  "first_page_order": 60,
  "last_page_order": 61
}