{
  "id": 4756385,
  "name": "TINA DARLENE LYNCH v. HARRY ALDENE HAZELWOOD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lynch v. Hazelwood",
  "decision_date": "1985-01-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 327PA84",
  "first_page": "619",
  "last_page": "619",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "312 N.C. 619"
    }
  ],
  "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": "18 S.E. 208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1893,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652694
      ],
      "year": 1893,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0240-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 138,
    "char_count": 1493,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.775,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.463975490999202e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8058120376902282
    },
    "sha256": "05013d13cf88896fc59421c9c91b571b38e26ccba5a6492dadb04a49dad3ba43",
    "simhash": "1:0b3f7718e507a6dd",
    "word_count": 245
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:57.145273+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice VAUGHN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "TINA DARLENE LYNCH v. HARRY ALDENE HAZELWOOD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe Court is evenly divided. Under these circumstances, following the uniform practice of this Court and the ancient rule of praesumitur pro negante, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, not as precedent but as the decision in this case. Durham v. R.R., 113 N.C. 240, 18 S.E. 208 (1893); Reg. v. Millis, 8 Eng. Rep. 844 (1844).\nAffirmed.\nJustice VAUGHN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pollock, Fullenwider, Cunningham & Patterson, by Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Staton, Perkinson, West & Doster, by Norman C. Post, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TINA DARLENE LYNCH v. HARRY ALDENE HAZELWOOD\nNo. 327PA84\n(Filed 8 January 1985)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 46\u2014 evenly divided court \u2014 Court of Appeals decision affirmed \u2014no precedent\nWhere one member of the Supreme Court took no part in the consideration or decision of the case, and the remaining six members of the Supreme Court are evenly divided, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and stands without precedential value.\nJustice Vaughn did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nOn discretionary review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion, pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs action in an order entered by Huffman, J., at the 13 June 1983 session of District Court, MOORE County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 December 1984.\nPollock, Fullenwider, Cunningham & Patterson, by Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nStaton, Perkinson, West & Doster, by Norman C. Post, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0619-01",
  "first_page_order": 649,
  "last_page_order": 649
}