{
  "id": 4720121,
  "name": "STEVE VERNON TONEY v. CYNTHIA JACKSON TONEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Toney v. Toney",
  "decision_date": "1985-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 43A85",
  "first_page": "501",
  "last_page": "501",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "313 N.C. 501"
    }
  ],
  "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": 143,
    "char_count": 1648,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.753,
    "sha256": "72dbd46946acd0cd8da5bf0cfe021aa0ea769b8b7f3c615e60dc248e664f24d7",
    "simhash": "1:23bbf8f3344384d8",
    "word_count": 268
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:31.098159+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": [
      "STEVE VERNON TONEY v. CYNTHIA JACKSON TONEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe issues raised by defendant on appeal are whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court judgment with regard to the custody of a minor child born of the parties\u2019 marriage and the plaintiffs obligation of support for another child. We have carefully reviewed the majority opinion, dissents, briefs and records of this case with regard to defendant\u2019s contentions. As to the issue of custody, we hold that the reasoning and the legal principles applied by the Court of Appeals majority are correct. We also decline to overrule the Court of Appeals on the issue of support. We note that defendant failed to request child support in her pleadings and that there is no indication in the record that she presented any monetary evidence from which the trial court could make findings relating to support. Defendant cannot now complain of the trial court\u2019s allocations of support between the parties. Consequently, the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJustice VAUGHN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Arledge, Callahan & Franklin, by J. Christopher Callahan for plaintiff-appe llee.",
      "W. T. Culpepper, III for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STEVE VERNON TONEY v. CYNTHIA JACKSON TONEY\nNo. 43A85\n(Filed 7 May 1985)\nAppeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of the Court of Appeals (Judge Braswell with Chief Judge Vaughn concurring in part and dissenting in part and Judge Eagles concurring in part and dissenting in part) which affirmed the judgment entered by Gash, J. at the 23 August 1983 Civil Session of District Court, RUTHERFORD County.\nArledge, Callahan & Franklin, by J. Christopher Callahan for plaintiff-appe llee.\nW. T. Culpepper, III for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0501-01",
  "first_page_order": 531,
  "last_page_order": 531
}