{
  "id": 571527,
  "name": "IN RE BAILEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Bailey",
  "decision_date": "1998",
  "docket_number": "No. 317P98",
  "first_page": "230",
  "last_page": "230",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "349 N.C. 230"
    }
  ],
  "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": "130 N.C.App. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 46,
    "char_count": 351,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.783,
    "sha256": "851f6d38e4e48f47c543c4acf57737856ee4e4e22d1cd3d92abe5b6e44fb5910",
    "simhash": "1:8d0ebcf2b110f406",
    "word_count": 60
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:15:14.712587+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "IN RE BAILEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Petition by petitioner for writ of supersedeas denied 12 August 1998. Petition by petitioner for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals allowed 8 October 1998.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN RE BAILEY\nNo. 317P98\nCase below: 130 N.C.App. 340"
  },
  "file_name": "0230-04",
  "first_page_order": 268,
  "last_page_order": 268
}