{
  "id": 8562781,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANTHONY EDELL WILLIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Willis",
  "decision_date": "1983-01-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 546A82",
  "first_page": "461",
  "last_page": "461",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "307 N.C. 461"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 118,
    "char_count": 1253,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.78,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.907597123529909e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4198459060740607
    },
    "sha256": "e3268b3ca52cd4aac54ecc2ad49365521e106b62330f1c63a9892452a4fc500b",
    "simhash": "1:a4b9e1ea2f57842e",
    "word_count": 207
  },
  "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. ANTHONY EDELL WILLIS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nHaving carefully reviewed the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals, the dissent, the briefs and authorities on this issue, we conclude that the result reached and the legal principles applied by the Court of Appeals are correct. Consequently, the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Jane P. Gray, for the State.",
      "Van Camp, Gill and Crumpler, P.A. by William B. Crumpler and Loflin and Loflin by Thomas F. Loflin, III and Robert S. Mahler for the defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANTHONY EDELL WILLIS\nNo. 546A82\n(Filed 11 January 1983)\nAppeal as of right pursuant to G.S. 7A-30\u00cd2) from a decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, filed 17 August 1982, which affirmed the 5 March 1981 denial by Judge Godwin, in Wake County Superior Court, of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence. Following Judge Godwin\u2019s denial of the motion to suppress evidence defendant, pursuant to a plea bargain, entered a plea of guilty to simple possession of heroin from which Judge Thomas Lee entered judgment on 3 July 1981. Defendant preserved his right to appeal the ruling on his motion to suppress notwithstanding his plea of guilty.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Jane P. Gray, for the State.\nVan Camp, Gill and Crumpler, P.A. by William B. Crumpler and Loflin and Loflin by Thomas F. Loflin, III and Robert S. Mahler for the defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0461-01",
  "first_page_order": 489,
  "last_page_order": 489
}