{
  "id": 2499718,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH NORMAN SUDDRETH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Suddreth",
  "decision_date": "1992-04-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 64A92",
  "first_page": "281",
  "last_page": "281",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "331 N.C. 281"
    }
  ],
  "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": "323 S.E.2d 23",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "25"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 N.C. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4753806
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "463"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/312/0460-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 108,
    "char_count": 1215,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.744,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.406173638565683e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3964119143625748
    },
    "sha256": "d4afb3c3860f9a555d5718c9d2d2de2f82a49cdc2a50e1b97f3528b20a1939b5",
    "simhash": "1:371887b05beaa01b",
    "word_count": 195
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:05:46.767853+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH NORMAN SUDDRETH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER\nTHIS matter is before the Court upon the defendant\u2019s Notice of Appeal, defendant\u2019s Petition for Discretionary Review as to additional issues, and the Attorney General\u2019s Motion to Dismiss Appeal for lack of legal principles of major significance.\nUpon consideration, defendant\u2019s Petition for Discretionary Review as to additional issues is denied, and notwithstanding the dissent in this matter in the Court of Appeals by the Honorable Robert F. Orr, the Attorney General\u2019s Motion to Dismiss Appeal is allowed pursuant to Rule 10, North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure and previous ruling of this Court in Clifford v. River Bend Plantation, Inc., 312 N.C. 460, 463, 323 S.E.2d 23, 25 (1984). Judge Orr\u2019s dissent in this matter concerned only the testimony of the State\u2019s hair analysis expert. There was no assignment of error concerning the testimony of the hair analysis expert referred to in the dissent, and, accordingly, defendant is foreclosed from arguing the issue of the hair expert\u2019s testimony to this Court.\nThese matters determined and done in Conference this the 21st day of April, 1992.\nLake, J.\nFor the Court",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lake, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH NORMAN SUDDRETH\nNo. 64A92\n(Filed 21 April 1992)"
  },
  "file_name": "0281-01",
  "first_page_order": 323,
  "last_page_order": 323
}