{
  "id": 138303,
  "name": "KEVIN E. HILL v. ROBERT L. HILL and BOB HILL ENTERPRISES, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hill v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "2001-11-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 236A01",
  "first_page": "348",
  "last_page": "348",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "354 N.C. 348"
    }
  ],
  "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 442",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N.C. App. 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9442366
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/142/0524-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 124,
    "char_count": 1495,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.725,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.474140541606369e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4452512482387969
    },
    "sha256": "71a836ffa4ede469d25c822a4ae6ad79c0898f713880b24caf39edb4b280223c",
    "simhash": "1:285fb2b363a3c4b8",
    "word_count": 246
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:42.215284+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "KEVIN E. HILL v. ROBERT L. HILL and BOB HILL ENTERPRISES, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in section one of the dissenting opinion by Judge Tyson, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and this case is remanded to that court to address defendants\u2019 remaining assignments of error.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wheatly, Wheatly, Nobles & Weeks, P.A., by C.R. Wheatly, Jr., and Stevenson L. Weeks, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Mason & Mason, P.A., by L. Patten Mason, and Ward and Smith, PA., by Kenneth R. Wooten, for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KEVIN E. HILL v. ROBERT L. HILL and BOB HILL ENTERPRISES, INC.\nNo. 236A01\n(Filed 9 November 2001)\nGifts\u2014 sufficient evidence of gift\u2014malicious prosecution\u2014 abuse of process\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals in this case is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals that plaintiffs evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that defendant father gifted a business and all of its assets to plaintiff son and to support submission to the jury of plaintiffs claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process; therefore, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of defendants\u2019 remaining assignments of error.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 142 N.C. App. 524, 545 S.E.2d 442 (2001), reversing a judgment entered 28 September 1999 and an amended judgment entered 12 November 1999 by Tilghman, J., in Superior Court, Carteret County. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 October 2001.\nWheatly, Wheatly, Nobles & Weeks, P.A., by C.R. Wheatly, Jr., and Stevenson L. Weeks, for plaintiff-appellant.\nMason & Mason, P.A., by L. Patten Mason, and Ward and Smith, PA., by Kenneth R. Wooten, for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0348-01",
  "first_page_order": 382,
  "last_page_order": 382
}