{
  "id": 8562773,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN HEYWOOD FOX",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Fox",
  "decision_date": "1983-01-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 563A82",
  "first_page": "460",
  "last_page": "460",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "307 N.C. 460"
    }
  ],
  "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": "294 S.E. 2d 410",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.C. App. 692",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525996
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/58/0692-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1458,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.831,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2228732031753678e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5985493748863351
    },
    "sha256": "876f82d89e5622b664fad80d1bb07dc04b91b4ddd3625a6d89408a6e9bc08a8d",
    "simhash": "1:219862b22203a74f",
    "word_count": 238
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:07:32.557624+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN HEYWOOD FOX"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe sole issue presented to this Court is whether the trial court erroneously denied defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence obtained from an alleged unlawful stop of defendant. The facts necessary for determination of this case are fully and accurately stated in the Court of Appeals\u2019 opinion. We have carefully reviewed the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals, the dissent, the briefs and authorities relating to defendant\u2019s contentions. We conclude that the result reached by the majority of the panel of the Court of Appeals, its reasoning, and the legal principles enunciated by it are correct.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by William H. Borden, Associate Attorney, for the State.",
      "Ellis M. Bragg for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN HEYWOOD FOX\nNo. 563A82\n(Filed 11 January 1983)\nAPPEAL by defendant as of right pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2) from the decision of the Court of Appeals, Morris, C.J., with Martin, J., concurring and Becton, J., dissenting reported at 58 N.C. App. 692, 294 S.E. 2d 410 (1982), affirming the order denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress by Grist, J., at the 21 October 1982 Criminal Session of MECKLENBURG Superior Court. Following the denial of the motion to suppress, defendant entered a plea of guilty to felonious possession of a stolen vehicle, but preserved his right to appeal the ruling on his motion to suppress.\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by William H. Borden, Associate Attorney, for the State.\nEllis M. Bragg for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0460-01",
  "first_page_order": 488,
  "last_page_order": 488
}