{
  "id": 8560832,
  "name": "PROPST CONSTRUCTION CO. v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Propst Construction Co. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation",
  "decision_date": "1982-11-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 291PA82",
  "first_page": "124",
  "last_page": "124",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "307 N.C. 124"
    }
  ],
  "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": "290 S.E. 2d 387",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 N.C. App. 759",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524344
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/56/0759-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 118,
    "char_count": 1435,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20616607377495755
    },
    "sha256": "3de6798811e0547057a7e8385b1bb6ad225988759232c47ce5e24c1dcc1c922b",
    "simhash": "1:86684bb9746cf1aa",
    "word_count": 237
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:07:32.557624+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "PROPST CONSTRUCTION CO. v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe Court of Appeals erred in remanding this case for trial by jury. Under N.C.G.S. 136-29(c), any controversy concerning a completed contract for the construction of a state highway is to be tried by a judge without a jury. Therefore, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is modified to the extent that the controversy is remanded for trial by a judge sitting as the finder of fact. Except as modified herein, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and adopted by this Court.\nModified and affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kluttz, Hamlin, Reamer, Blankenship & Kluttz, by Clarence Kluttz and Malcolm B. Blankenship, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Blackwell M. Brog-den, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PROPST CONSTRUCTION CO. v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nNo. 291PA82\n(Filed 3 November 1982)\nHighways and Cartways \u00a7 9\u2014 action on completed highway construction contract \u2014 trial by judge without jury\nThe Court of Appeals erred in remanding for trial by jury a case concerning a completed contract for the construction of a state highway, since under G.S. 136-29(c) such an action is to be tried by a judge without a jury.\nOn discretionary review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 56 N.C. App. 759, 290 S.E. 2d 387 (1982), reversing summary judgment for defendant entered by Wood, J., at the 21 April 1981 Session of Superior Court, MONTGOMERY County.\nKluttz, Hamlin, Reamer, Blankenship & Kluttz, by Clarence Kluttz and Malcolm B. Blankenship, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Blackwell M. Brog-den, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0124-01",
  "first_page_order": 152,
  "last_page_order": 152
}