{
  "id": 1155836,
  "name": "SAUNDERS v. EDENTON OB/GYN CTR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Saunders v. Edenton Ob/Gyn Ctr.",
  "decision_date": "1999-12-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 469A99",
  "first_page": "189",
  "last_page": "189",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "351 N.C. 189"
    }
  ],
  "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": "134 N.C.App. 733",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 44,
    "char_count": 301,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.78,
    "sha256": "5afd073c55ae7db5cb66da08f1729140e3f111e6830ee79248012b46c74bbbad",
    "simhash": "1:099ea690f3b58446",
    "word_count": 51
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:38:07.529951+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SAUNDERS v. EDENTON OB/GYN CTR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Petition by defendants 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 2 December 1999.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SAUNDERS v. EDENTON OB/GYN CTR.\nNo. 469A99\nCase below: 134 N.C.App. 733"
  },
  "file_name": "0189-01",
  "first_page_order": 239,
  "last_page_order": 239
}