{
  "id": 53928,
  "name": "STATE v. CREASON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Creason",
  "decision_date": "1996-12-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 364A96",
  "first_page": "181",
  "last_page": "181",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "345 N.C. 181"
    }
  ],
  "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": "123 N.C. App. 495",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11913917
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/123/0495-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 58,
    "char_count": 423,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.788,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0016933419670413217
    },
    "sha256": "5955252a10d991b1ce664b2e8987cdfee03b26da49d10f598e6c8ccacfcdc88d",
    "simhash": "1:203103e556042cb1",
    "word_count": 65
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:16.077233+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CREASON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question is allowed 5 December 1996 except as to defendant\u2019s Issue I, namely, whether defendant\u2019s constitutional protection against double jeopardy was violated by his being punished both under the North Carolina Controlled Substance Tax Act and by a criminal prosecution.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CREASON\nNo. 364A96\nCase below: 123 N.C. App. 495"
  },
  "file_name": "0181-01",
  "first_page_order": 235,
  "last_page_order": 235
}