{
  "id": 138373,
  "name": "HANES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A North Carolina Corporation v. HOTMIX & BITUMINOUS EQUIP. CO., INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hanes Construction Co. v. Hotmix & Bituminous Equip. Co.",
  "decision_date": "2001-12-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 563A01",
  "first_page": "560",
  "last_page": "560",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "354 N.C. 560"
    }
  ],
  "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": "552 S.E.2d 177",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N.C. App. 24",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11353591
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/146/0024-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 112,
    "char_count": 1288,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.702,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30997502170975993
    },
    "sha256": "8f7e86ff9753a3082e50a6ab749c1896e848cfcdd3aeafd033e2cd649c3c95f6",
    "simhash": "1:8a8bf68e70c3a250",
    "word_count": 198
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:42.215284+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HANES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A North Carolina Corporation v. HOTMIX & BITUMINOUS EQUIP. CO., INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cunningham Crump & Cunningham, PLLC, by R. Flint Crump, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Brinkley Walser, PLLC, by Stephen W. Coles, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HANES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A North Carolina Corporation v. HOTMIX & BITUMINOUS EQUIP. CO., INC.\nNo. 563A01\n(Filed 18 December 2001)\nJurisdiction\u2014 breach of contract\u2014out-of-state seller\u2014long-arm statute\u2014minimum contacts\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state seller of asphalt equipment in a breach of contract action is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals that personal jurisdiction over defendant was not authorized by the long-arm statute, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-75.4, and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant violated due process because defendant had insufficient minimum contacts with this state.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 146 N.C. App. 24, 552 S.E.2d 177 (2001), reversing and remanding an order signed 4 April 2000 by Burke, J., in S\u00fcperior Court, Davidson County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 December 2001.\nCunningham Crump & Cunningham, PLLC, by R. Flint Crump, for plaintiff-appellee.\nBrinkley Walser, PLLC, by Stephen W. Coles, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0560-01",
  "first_page_order": 594,
  "last_page_order": 594
}