{
  "id": 138499,
  "name": "HOWARD, STALLINGS, FROM & HUTSON, P.A. v. FRANK DOUGLAS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howard, Stallings, From & Hutson, P.A. v. Douglas",
  "decision_date": "2001-11-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 223A01",
  "first_page": "346",
  "last_page": "346",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "354 N.C. 346"
    }
  ],
  "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": "545 S.E.2d 470",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N.C. App. 122",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11433522
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/143/0122-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 117,
    "char_count": 1210,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.725,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.004959748618548803
    },
    "sha256": "dc0282d0830bd649add58dff7984a6edef9c64ec241f67ed5aa2e04a90ca32cf",
    "simhash": "1:02fb368a22a724d2",
    "word_count": 196
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:42.215284+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HOWARD, STALLINGS, FROM & HUTSON, P.A. v. FRANK DOUGLAS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Timmons-Goodson.\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Howard, Stallings, From & Hutson, P.A., by E. Cader Howard, John N. Hutson, Jr., and Colleen M. Crowley, for plaintiff - appellant.",
      "Rudolph Maher Widenhouse & Fialko, by Thomas K. Maher, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HOWARD, STALLINGS, FROM & HUTSON, P.A. v. FRANK DOUGLAS\nNo. 223A01\n(Filed 9 November 2001)\nJudgments\u2014 default judgment\u2014letter by counsel\u2014not appearance\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals in an action to recover legal fees is reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals that a letter sent by defendant\u2019s attorney to plaintiff\u2019s attorney after the complaint was filed but before service of the complaint was not an appearance which required three days\u2019 notice to defendant before default judgment could be entered against him.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 143 N.C. App. 122, 545 S.E.2d 470 (2001), reversing and remanding an order entered 2 March 2000 by Gessner, J., in District Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 October 2001.\nHoward, Stallings, From & Hutson, P.A., by E. Cader Howard, John N. Hutson, Jr., and Colleen M. Crowley, for plaintiff - appellant.\nRudolph Maher Widenhouse & Fialko, by Thomas K. Maher, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0346-01",
  "first_page_order": 380,
  "last_page_order": 380
}