{
  "id": 4695669,
  "name": "PENN COMPRESSION MOULDING, INC. v. MAR-BAL, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Penn Compression Moulding, Inc. v. Mar-Bal, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1985-10-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 184A85",
  "first_page": "528",
  "last_page": "529",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "314 N.C. 528"
    }
  ],
  "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": "326 S.E. 2d 280",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Judge Johnson, Judge Whichard concurring, and Judge Phillips dissenting"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.C. App. 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523511
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Judge Johnson, Judge Whichard concurring, and Judge Phillips dissenting"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/73/0291-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 130,
    "char_count": 1233,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.786,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.212842755703095e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5100013552913703
    },
    "sha256": "3ebaea87f3d9a0758ca34c8d5d513d22ba1c01bc36e2e06c110af40546fbb7ba",
    "simhash": "1:30fa6ed6ae0591ee",
    "word_count": 200
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:08.801916+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "PENN COMPRESSION MOULDING, INC. v. MAR-BAL, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThis was an action to recover commissions allegedly due plaintiff as a result of a contract between plaintiff and defendant. The facts of this case are fully and accurately set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals and need not be repeated herein.\nAfter reviewing the records and briefs and hearing the oral argument question presented by this appeal, we conclude that the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals is correct and should be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mast, Tew, Armstrong & Morris, P.A., by L. Lamar Armstrong, Jr. and George B. Mast, Attorneys for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Narron, O\u2019Hale, Whittington and Woodruff, P.A., by Gordon C. Woodruff and John P. O\u2019Hale, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PENN COMPRESSION MOULDING, INC. v. MAR-BAL, INC.\nNo. 184A85\n(Filed 1 October 1985)\nAPPEAL by plaintiff as a matter of right pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from decision of the Court of Appeals, reported at 73 N.C. App. 291, 326 S.E. 2d 280 (1985) (Judge Johnson, Judge Whichard concurring, and Judge Phillips dissenting), which reversed Judge Bailey\u2019s entry of summary judgment for plaintiff at the 8 November 1983 Session of JOHNSTON County Superior Court and remanded the cause for entry of summary judgment for defendant.\nMast, Tew, Armstrong & Morris, P.A., by L. Lamar Armstrong, Jr. and George B. Mast, Attorneys for plaintiff-appellant.\nNarron, O\u2019Hale, Whittington and Woodruff, P.A., by Gordon C. Woodruff and John P. O\u2019Hale, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0528-01",
  "first_page_order": 572,
  "last_page_order": 573
}