{
  "id": 11979883,
  "name": "Pitman vs. Casey",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pitman v. Casey",
  "decision_date": "1804-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "293",
  "last_page": "294",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Hayw. 293"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.C. 293"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 22358,
    "name": "North Carolina Superior Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 131,
    "char_count": 878,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.24,
    "sha256": "f977f83e6c5d78a0dfadf4fb740c2127d930d49dda27bf11275ff0fd2f6dcf53",
    "simhash": "1:1f1189a44ad0e7fd",
    "word_count": 169
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:25:52.833864+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pitman vs. Casey."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "^jrC;.YJdOnl,\nTba '.\u00ed'espar-s compbr.ne'.l of, 6iff. r.rx.v vi'-im-i-.d n'-.wo ihr'-j yoors b'rfo'o v'->A, in --ta\u00edN-st of -.A o<> \u25a0j\u2019 >!->, asm] ten co 'tr-riro \u00edo\u00bb \u00ed\u2019;o n; ihe ac\u00a1\u00f1t.n\u201e n \u00bf'ill wo wiiWa \u00abf,-.- -/ca\u00ed,,!. T.\u00ed\u00fc act a'- ih.-;it;nioi3s is plr.j7::-.\u00abi 5 \u2014 \u25a0 a.ul moct c?,'\".Jn that act is a brr ; :\u2022 \u00ed7>-^ nction ; for it aia o; ioundr.vi unoa (,:m first \u00a3*vrl\u00e1\u00ed'as onfsy; not \u00abpom aoj7 cca\u00fan-f r. - of p-jiisoa \u25a0\u25a0bn*; fterwards,aad vvitbin the thi\u2019fe yc.\"3o Bafori ; i\u2019M'tiim of tror;bn imo\u00edatr\u00e1ntd for coir'fits;i2g y. \u00a1\u25a0.or..r7 \u00bf\u2022\u25a01 of it (\u2019it; G-'st o:- ,rj-, Kiit'e l-a a re.,-.:yJ,r-iijg of tba r-\u00ed'..\u2019- ? y tfe r. rty \u00ab..r 'Gad, Th;a i,Lc lavv JvCaas the poasesdoe; to have been \u2019.is all along; and o\u00ed course that \u00dc\u00bbe defendant w?s a violator of It every moment he continued bin possession.\nUpon this opinion, (he plaintiff waa non-suited.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "^jrC;.YJdOnl,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pitman vs. Casey."
  },
  "file_name": "0293-02",
  "first_page_order": 297,
  "last_page_order": 298
}