{
  "id": 8560232,
  "name": "LAWRENCE E. KACZALA v. GEORGE GRADY RICHARDSON v. CITY OF WILMINGTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kaczala v. Richardson",
  "decision_date": "1976-05-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 62",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "93",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "290 N.C. 91"
    }
  ],
  "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": "215 S.E. 2d 852",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551298
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/26/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 S.E. 2d 612",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560204
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0087-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 4911,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.629,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20614387170835055
    },
    "sha256": "47ce88ada7b9e399ab8b5aa934e53d30aaf63f8084d068b38251838ffc3ba6d1",
    "simhash": "1:271ba6dae4c6496f",
    "word_count": 802
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:34.654413+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LAWRENCE E. KACZALA v. GEORGE GRADY RICHARDSON v. CITY OF WILMINGTON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EXUM, Justice.\nThe Court of Appeals\u2019 majority saw the issue before it as whether on the first appeal it awarded \u201ca partial new trial.\u201d Realizing that it could \u201cin a proper case,\u201d direct a partial new trial it held that since the issues to be retried were not specifically and expressly designated in its first opinion, a \u201cpartial new trial\u201d was not ordered. The majority then concluded that it was proper for Richardson\u2019s counterclaim and cross-claim to be retried and that judgment should have been entered on the verdict.\nBecause, we believe, the Court of Appeals\u2019 majority erroneously identified the issue before it, it reached an erroneous conclusion. The issue, as indicated by Judge Britt in his dissent, was not whether fewer than all issues on any given claim ought to be retried, but whether Richardson\u2019s claim, in its entirety, against the plaintiff and third-party defendant ought to be retried. When the question is thus put, it is clear that the answer is \u201cNo.\u201d\nRichardson did not appeal from an adverse determination of his claim in the first trial. He was, consequently, bound by this determination. Kaczala\u2019s and the City\u2019s appeals from an adverse determination at the first trial of their claims did not give the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to consider or grant a new trial on Richardson\u2019s claim. Henderson v. Matthews, 290 N.C. 87, 224 S.E. 2d 612 (1976) and cases therein cited.\nThat Richardson\u2019s claim was barred in the retrial did not preclude him from retrying all of the issues in the claims asserted against him, including the issue of the contributory negligence of Kaczala.\nJudge Tillery, consequently, was correct in refusing to enter a judgment in favor of Richardson and in entering a judgment denying recovery to all parties. The Court of Appeals erred in reversing his judgment. The decision of the Court of Appeals is, therefore,\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EXUM, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith & Spivey, by Vaiden P. Kendrick, Attorneys for Appellant Lawrence E. Kaczala.",
      "Yow & Yow, by Cicero P. Yow, Attorneys for Appellant City of Wilmington.",
      "Prickett & Scott, by Carlton S. Prickett, Jr., and Marshall, Williams, Gorham <& Brawley, by Lonnie B. Williams, Attorneys for Appellee George Grady Richardson."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LAWRENCE E. KACZALA v. GEORGE GRADY RICHARDSON v. CITY OF WILMINGTON\nNo. 62\n(Filed 14 May 1976)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 1; Judgments \u00a7 36\u2014 failure of defendant to appeal.\u2014 effect of other parties\u2019 appeals\nWhere defendant did not appeal from an adverse determination of his claim for property damage and personal injury in the first trial, appeals by plaintiff and the third party defendant from an adverse determination of their claims did not give the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to consider or grant a new trial on defendant\u2019s claim.\nOn appeal from a decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals reported at 26 N.C. App. 268, 215 S.E. 2d 852 (1975). The opinion is by Vaughn, J., concurred in by Parker, J. The dissent of Britt, J., gives rise to the appeal. This case was docketed and argued as Case No. 48 at the Fall Term 1975.\nPlaintiff, operator of a fire truck belonging to the City of Wilmington, brought suit to recover for his personal injuries allegedly incurred in a collision between the truck and an automobile being operated by defendant Richardson on the ground of Richardson\u2019s negligence. Richardson, answering, denied negligence, pleaded contributory negligence, and asserted by way of counterclaim and third-party complaint a claim for recovery of his property damage and personal injuries against the City and Kaczala. The City, answering, cross-claimed against Richardson for damage to its truck.\nWhen the matter came on for trial before Wells, J., on June 12, 1972, the jury answered issues as to Richardson\u2019s negligence and Kaczala\u2019s contributory negligence affirmatively. From a judgment denying recovery to any party, only Kaczala and the City appealed. The Court of Appeals in an opinion by Britt, J., awarded the appellants a new trial for errors committed.\nAt a second trial before Tillery, J., Kaczala and the City moved that the trial be limited to Kaczala\u2019s and the City\u2019s claims against Richardson inasmuch as Richardson had not appealed from the judgment adverse to him at the first trial. Judge Tillery reserved ruling on the motion and the trial proceeded resulting in a jury verdict in Richardson\u2019s favor against Kaczala and the City. The jury awarded Richardson damages for personal injury and damage to his automobile. Judge Tillery refused, however, to enter judgment as tendered by Richardson in accordance with the verdict but instead entered a judgment denying all parties a recovery.\nDefendant Richardson appealed, assigning as error Judge Tillery\u2019s judgment as entered and his refusal to enter judgment on the verdict. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the cas.e for entry of judgment in conformity with the verdict. Kaczala and the City appeal from this decision.\nSmith & Spivey, by Vaiden P. Kendrick, Attorneys for Appellant Lawrence E. Kaczala.\nYow & Yow, by Cicero P. Yow, Attorneys for Appellant City of Wilmington.\nPrickett & Scott, by Carlton S. Prickett, Jr., and Marshall, Williams, Gorham <& Brawley, by Lonnie B. Williams, Attorneys for Appellee George Grady Richardson."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 123,
  "last_page_order": 125
}