{
  "id": 8576460,
  "name": "STATE v. WERNER MOHRMANN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mohrmann",
  "decision_date": "1965-11-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "594",
  "last_page": "595",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "265 N.C. 594"
    }
  ],
  "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": "91 S.E. 2d 580",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626190
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "585"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0584-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 S.E. 2d 875",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.C. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574103
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "488"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/264/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 783",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 2172,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.604,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20672556585345322
    },
    "sha256": "19e831763adc85ec79064bf836c3302a2aac499b91fb70aaa3a0699e033be3a4",
    "simhash": "1:2b81bda474fc6c63",
    "word_count": 363
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:16.118019+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WERNER MOHRMANN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere was ample evidence to support the verdict in respect of the charge alleged in each of the two warrants. Hence, the assignments of error directed to the court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motions for judgments as of nonsuit are without merit.\nDefendant\u2019s other assignments of error do not comply with Rules 19(3) and 21. See Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 254 N.C. 783, et. seq. \u201cWe have stated again and again that the error relied upon should be definitely and clearly presented, and the Court not compelled to go beyond the assignment of error itself to learn what the question is.\u201d Brown v. Brown, 264 N.C. 485, 488, 141 S.E. 2d 875. Nor does defendant\u2019s brief comply with Rule 28. See Cudworth v. Insurance Co., 243 N.C. 584, 585, 91 S.E. 2d 580. Notwithstanding, we have examined the general arguments set forth in defendant\u2019s brief with reference to the assignments of error he attempts to bring forward. Suffice to say, such general arguments do not disclose prejudicial error.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Barham and Staff Attorney Partin for the State.",
      "Earle R. Purser for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WERNER MOHRMANN.\n(Filed 10 November, 1965.)\nAppeal by defendant from Clark, Special Judge, Second July 1965 Special Criminal Session of Wake.\nCriminal prosecutions on two separate warrants charging that defendant on June 27, 1964, (1) wilfully failed to stop at the scene of an accident and collision, in which the motor vehicle operated by him was involved, resulting in damage to the property of one Bartell Lane, a violation of G.S. 20-166 (b), and (2) operated a motor vehicle upon the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a violation of G.S. 20-138, tried de novo in the superior court after appeals by defendant from convictions and judgments in the City Court of Raleigh.\nThe two cases were consolidated for trial.\nThe jury, with reference to the charge alleged in each warrant, returned a separate verdict of guilty as charged; and in each of the two cases, the court pronounced judgment that defendant pay a fine of $100.00 and costs. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Barham and Staff Attorney Partin for the State.\nEarle R. Purser for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0594-01",
  "first_page_order": 634,
  "last_page_order": 635
}