{
  "id": 8568349,
  "name": "JEANE JUNKER MORRIS v. KENT B. MORRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Morris v. Morris",
  "decision_date": "1980-12-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 51",
  "first_page": "525",
  "last_page": "525",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "301 N.C. 525"
    }
  ],
  "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": "266 S.E. 2d 381",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 701",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553141
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/46/0701-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1534,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.718,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.052393210097117e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4253099311967609
    },
    "sha256": "3fd1736062c876a7bca3d63d53987456bafa7ec98c18bc712af9d6ced897c903",
    "simhash": "1:85ebbe50f7a161c6",
    "word_count": 248
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:56.373032+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice BROCK did not participate in the consideration and decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JEANE JUNKER MORRIS v. KENT B. MORRIS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nIn this action for alimony without divorce on grounds of abandonment and non-support, the defense was constructive abandonment of defendant by plaintiff. Aside from routine evidentiary and jury instruction questions, the principal conten*ion of appellant is that the trial judge erroneously placed upon her uie burden of proving that defendant\u2019s abandonment was without justification, or at least placed upon her a heavier burden in this regard than the law allows, or ought to allow. We have carefully examined each of appellant\u2019s assignments of error in light of the record and her brief. The Court of Appeals\u2019 majority opinion has dealt fully and properly with each of them. For the reasons given in that opinion, therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is\nAffirmed.\nJustice BROCK did not participate in the consideration and decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walker, Palmer & Miller, P.A., by James E. Walker and Robert P. Johnston, Attorneys for Plaintiff appellant.",
      "CraighiU, Rendleman, Clarkson, Ingle & Blythe, P.A., by John R. Ingle, Attorneys for Defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JEANE JUNKER MORRIS v. KENT B. MORRIS\nNo. 51\n(Filed 2 December 1980)\nAppeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals finding no error in a trial in MECKLENBURG District Court, Judge Clifton E. Johnson presiding, in which the jury found for defendant. The Court of Appeals\u2019 opinion, 46 N.C. App. 701,266 S.E. 2d 381 (1980), is by Judge Parker with Judge Arnold concurring. Judge Webb dissented. The appeal, therefore, comes by way of G.S. 7A-30 (2).\nWalker, Palmer & Miller, P.A., by James E. Walker and Robert P. Johnston, Attorneys for Plaintiff appellant.\nCraighiU, Rendleman, Clarkson, Ingle & Blythe, P.A., by John R. Ingle, Attorneys for Defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0525-01",
  "first_page_order": 551,
  "last_page_order": 551
}