{
  "id": 2488464,
  "name": "EUNICE J. JACKSON v. SHADRACH JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jackson v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1989-11-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 180A89",
  "first_page": "543",
  "last_page": "543",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "325 N.C. 543"
    }
  ],
  "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": "379 S.E.2d 112",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N.C. App. 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 S.E.2d 190",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565424
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0561-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 110,
    "char_count": 1015,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.763,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08134122877434168
    },
    "sha256": "5349057270891fea2a69d9ff2142a05ac11cb92f50809f8115f33aca957a9079",
    "simhash": "1:729e10b77709c5fe",
    "word_count": 170
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:51:09.974518+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "EUNICE J. JACKSON v. SHADRACH JONES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nWe conclude, as did the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of contributory negligence. The Court of Appeals\u2019 decision to the contrary is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further remand to Superior Court, Halifax County. We also conclude, in our discretion, that a new trial should be conducted on all issues. See Robertson v. Stanley, 285 N.C. 561, 206 S.E.2d 190 (1974).\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brenton D. Adams for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "James, Godwin, Wellman & Stephenson, by A. S. Godwin, Jr., for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EUNICE J. JACKSON v. SHADRACH JONES\nNo. 180A89\n(Filed 9 November 1989)\nAPPEAL by plaintiff pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 93 N.C. App. 513, 379 S.E.2d 112 (1989), finding no error in a judgment entered by Brown, J., at the 16 May 1988 Session of Superior Court, HALIFAX County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 9 October 1989.\nBrenton D. Adams for plaintiff-appellant.\nJames, Godwin, Wellman & Stephenson, by A. S. Godwin, Jr., for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0543-01",
  "first_page_order": 569,
  "last_page_order": 569
}