{
  "id": 4680774,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM FRANK McCLEARY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McCleary",
  "decision_date": "1984-07-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 13A84",
  "first_page": "397",
  "last_page": "397",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "311 N.C. 397"
    }
  ],
  "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": "308 S.E. 2d 883",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N.C. App. 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523094
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/65/0174-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 14-289",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 115,
    "char_count": 1118,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.792,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3075533399139865e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6236801836709399
    },
    "sha256": "e669c035d8a16e9764a69928acc552ebadce2163ce9c681a1cc767d6d0fbeb18",
    "simhash": "1:2f1f44a942a74616",
    "word_count": 178
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:48.934020+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM FRANK McCLEARY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nWe have considered the briefs of the parties, they having by stipulation waived oral argument, on the question of the constitutionality of our statutes controlling lotteries, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 14-289, 14-290, and 14-292.1. We have also considered the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals and the thoughtful, well-reasoned, and thoroughly documented majority opinion of that court justifying its decision sustaining the constitutionality of the questioned statutes. We conclude that the decision should be and it is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Steven F. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Gingles and Hamrick by Ralph C. Gingles, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM FRANK McCLEARY\nNo. 13A84\n(Filed 6 July 1984)\nAppeal by defendant from a decision of the Court of Appeals, opinion by Johnson, J., with Hill, J., concurring and Phillips, J., dissenting, reversing an order of dismissal entered by Smith, S. J., at the 26 July 1982 Session of Gaston Superior Court. The decision is reported at 65 N.C. App. 174, 308 S.E. 2d 883 (1983).\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Steven F. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nGingles and Hamrick by Ralph C. Gingles, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0397-01",
  "first_page_order": 441,
  "last_page_order": 441
}