{
  "id": 2544263,
  "name": "ESTELLA DURHAM v. JOSEPH E. HALE and wife, ROBBIE M. HALE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Durham v. Hale",
  "decision_date": "1991-05-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 33A91",
  "first_page": "728",
  "last_page": "728",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "328 N.C. 728"
    }
  ],
  "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": "398 S.E.2d 911",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 N.C. App. 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527489
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/101/0204-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 102,
    "char_count": 1016,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.729,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08199184585665033
    },
    "sha256": "0f766c229882a59c22c566381361829839c52c61d952b176774894040c3b6253",
    "simhash": "1:2c90f69f65b1c45c",
    "word_count": 172
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:40.693084+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ESTELLA DURHAM v. JOSEPH E. HALE and wife, ROBBIE M. HALE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Wynn, J. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, Cumberland County, with instructions to vacate the judgment entered by the trial court and to enter a judgment consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Downing & David, by Harold D. Downing, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Barrington, Herndon & Raisig, P.A., by Carl A. Barrington, Jr., and Paul A. Raisig, Jr., for defendant-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ESTELLA DURHAM v. JOSEPH E. HALE and wife, ROBBIE M. HALE\nNo. 33A91\n(Filed 2 May 1991)\nAPPEAL as of right by defendants pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 101 N.C. App. 204, 398 S.E.2d 911 (1990), affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $4,746.25 entered by Cherry, J., at the 16 January 1990 Civil Session of District Court, CUMBERLAND County. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 April 1991.\nDowning & David, by Harold D. Downing, for plaintiff-appellee.\nBarrington, Herndon & Raisig, P.A., by Carl A. Barrington, Jr., and Paul A. Raisig, Jr., for defendant-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0728-01",
  "first_page_order": 762,
  "last_page_order": 762
}