{
  "id": 2541482,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEAN DARWIN FOLAND and MATTHEW ERVIN PURDY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Foland",
  "decision_date": "1991-01-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 62PA90",
  "first_page": "82",
  "last_page": "83",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "328 N.C. 82"
    }
  ],
  "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": "388 S.E.2d 195",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.C. App. 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520754
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/97/0309-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1645,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0819646241923757
    },
    "sha256": "7d683da56db900bf6c308a19064062f9ad83f3568e6d1ac87ea0c0584fc360f6",
    "simhash": "1:189b90f1660b80f8",
    "word_count": 247
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:40.693084+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEAN DARWIN FOLAND and MATTHEW ERVIN PURDY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nWe initially allowed the State\u2019s petition for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals\u2019 holding that the indictments must be dismissed under the Speedy Trial Act, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-701, et seq., repealed by Chapter 688, 1989 Session Laws. Defendants appealed and petitioned for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals\u2019 holding that there was no error in the trial court\u2019s denial of defendants\u2019 motion to suppress certain evidence, a holding with which Judge Greene disagreed. We allowed defendants\u2019 petition and denied the State\u2019s motion to dismiss defendants\u2019 appeal.\nAfter giving careful consideration to the oral arguments and new briefs of the State and defendants, the Court determines that the petitions for discretionary review were improvidently allowed. This leaves undisturbed the decision of the Court of Appeals that the indictments against defendants be dismissed and makes moot defendants\u2019 appeal, which we now dismiss because it is moot.\nPetitions for discretionary review improvidently allowed; appeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by James Peeler Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant and appellee.",
      "Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, for defendantappellee and appellant Foland; Robin E. Hudson for defendantappellee and appellant Purdy."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEAN DARWIN FOLAND and MATTHEW ERVIN PURDY\nNo. 62PA90\n(Filed 10 January 1991)\nOn the State\u2019s and defendants\u2019 petitions for discretionary review and defendants\u2019 appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals, 97 N.C. App. 309, 388 S.E.2d 195 (1990). Heard in the Supreme Court 8 October 1990.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by James Peeler Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant and appellee.\nMalcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, for defendantappellee and appellant Foland; Robin E. Hudson for defendantappellee and appellant Purdy."
  },
  "file_name": "0082-01",
  "first_page_order": 116,
  "last_page_order": 117
}