{
  "id": 8562693,
  "name": "ANNIE MAE G. SMITH v. ADDIS PITTARD CATES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Cates",
  "decision_date": "1966-03-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "673",
  "last_page": "674",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 N.C. 673"
    }
  ],
  "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": 140,
    "char_count": 1635,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "sha256": "50ac81ca77f599ef2e8c21a93e1b3af2bdeefbf854efc3411a09332ee4fee0e6",
    "simhash": "1:87e693ec627e858d",
    "word_count": 257
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:16:51.556627+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Moobe, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ANNIE MAE G. SMITH v. ADDIS PITTARD CATES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe jury, under application of settled principles of law, found as its verdict that plaintiff was not injured by the negligence of defendant as alleged in the complaint. A careful examination of plaintiff\u2019s assignments of error discloses no new question or matter requiring extended discussion. Neither reversible nor prejudicial error has been made to appear. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.\nMoobe, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George B. Kornegay, Jr. and Henson P. Barnes for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Rivers D. Johnson, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANNIE MAE G. SMITH v. ADDIS PITTARD CATES.\n(Filed 9 March, 1966.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Cowper, J., December 1965 Session of DupliN.\nAction ex delicto to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the actionable negligence of defendant in the operation of his automobile which struck plaintiff, a pedestrian.\nThe defendant in his answer denied that he was negligent, and conditionally pleaded contributory negligence of plaintiff as a bar to any recovery by her.\nPlaintiff and defendant offered evidence, and the following issues were submitted to the jury and answered as appear:\n\u201c1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint?\n\u201cAnswer: No.\n\u201c2. Did the plaintiff by her own negligence contribute to her injuries?\n\u201cAnswer: .\n\u201c3. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant?\n\u201cAnswer: .\u201d\nFrom a judgment upon the verdict that plaintiff recover nothing from defendant, and that, defendant recover the costs of the action from plaintiff, plaintiff appeals to the Supreme Court.\nGeorge B. Kornegay, Jr. and Henson P. Barnes for plaintiff appellant.\nRivers D. Johnson, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0673-01",
  "first_page_order": 709,
  "last_page_order": 710
}