{
  "id": 796079,
  "name": "GERTIE MAE BOOMER, Administratrix of the Estate op Joyce Boomer Forbes, deceased v. SHERWOOD WATSON CARAWAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boomer v. Caraway",
  "decision_date": "1995-11-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 596PA94",
  "first_page": "186",
  "last_page": "187",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "342 N.C. 186"
    }
  ],
  "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": "449 S.E.2d 215",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 723",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525555
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/116/0723-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "449 S.E.2d 215",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "218"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 723",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525555
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "726"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/116/0723-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 2268,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.748,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.028613637320168087
    },
    "sha256": "0e103356edd3f8fcf55c4d0c2ea3baa862700cc2036083e79df82ab89e3f01f4",
    "simhash": "1:1c3334c371bfe20f",
    "word_count": 367
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:36:26.105751+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GERTIE MAE BOOMER, Administratrix of the Estate op Joyce Boomer Forbes, deceased v. SHERWOOD WATSON CARAWAY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nIn affirming summary judgment for the defendant, the Court of Appeals said that it could not find defendant was estopped from asserting the statute of limitation defense \u201c[w]ithout evidence that defendant had an affirmative duty to seek judicial approval of the settlement.\u201d Boomer v. Caraway, 116 N.C. App. 723, 726, 449 S.E.2d 215, 218 (1994). We disavow this language to the extent that it suggests that the question of who has the duty to seek judicial approval of a settlement is one involving the presentation of evidence rather than a question of law. In all other respects, we agree with the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.\nAFFIRMED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Law Offices of Grover C. McCain, Jr., by Grover C. McCain, Jr., and Glenn C. Veit, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Dunn, Dunn & Stoller, by David A. Stoller and Andrew D. Jones, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GERTIE MAE BOOMER, Administratrix of the Estate op Joyce Boomer Forbes, deceased v. SHERWOOD WATSON CARAWAY\nNo. 596PA94\n(Filed 3 November 1995)\nJudgments \u00a7 326 (NCI4th)\u2014 settlement involving minors \u2014 no estoppel to assert statute of limitations \u2014 disapproval of opinion language\nA decision by the Court of Appeals that defendant was not estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in a wrongful death action because plaintiff:administratrix rather than defendant had an affirmative duty to seek judicial approval of a settlement benefitting deceased\u2019s minor children is affirmed. However, a statement by the Court of Appeals that it could not find defendant was estopped from asserting the statute of limitation defense \u201cwithout evidence that defendant had an affirmative duty to seek judicial approval of the settlement\u201d is disavowed to the extent it suggests that the question of who has the duty to seek judicial approval of a settlement is one involving the presentation of evidence rather than a question of law.\nAm Jur 2d, Judgments \u00a7 222.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 116 N.C. App. 723, 449 S.E.2d 215 (1994), affirming judgment for defendant entered by Phillips, J., on 30 January 1993, in Superior Court, Pamlico County. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 October 1995.\nLaw Offices of Grover C. McCain, Jr., by Grover C. McCain, Jr., and Glenn C. Veit, for plaintiff-appellant.\nDunn, Dunn & Stoller, by David A. Stoller and Andrew D. Jones, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0186-01",
  "first_page_order": 218,
  "last_page_order": 219
}