{
  "id": 1511419,
  "name": "DAVID P. REYNOLDS v. CYNTHIA W. REYNOLDS (now FLYNN); CYNTHIA FLYNN (formerly REYNOLDS) v. DAVID P. REYNOLDS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Reynolds v. Reynolds",
  "decision_date": "2002-10-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 38A02",
  "first_page": "287",
  "last_page": "288",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "356 N.C. 287"
    }
  ],
  "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": "557 S.E.2d 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N.C. App. 566",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9380662
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/147/0566-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1652,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.688,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0775721150396781e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5616458720180211
    },
    "sha256": "db63d5c1b1ca89efdfdad55c1ab2f008c55f1d1acf78bf3e754033ebcc1da8f6",
    "simhash": "1:015c56bd37b7f0f9",
    "word_count": 270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:54.672071+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVID P. REYNOLDS v. CYNTHIA W. REYNOLDS (now FLYNN) CYNTHIA FLYNN (formerly REYNOLDS) v. DAVID P. REYNOLDS"
    ],
    "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": [
      "James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by William K. Diehl, Jr. and Preston 0. Odom, III, for appellant Cynthia Flynn (formerly Reynolds).",
      "Horack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes, P.A., by Thomas R. Cannon and Kary C. Watson, for appellee David Reynolds."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVID P. REYNOLDS v. CYNTHIA W. REYNOLDS (now FLYNN) CYNTHIA FLYNN (formerly REYNOLDS) v. DAVID P. REYNOLDS\nNo. 38A02\n(Filed 4 October 2002)\nContempt\u2014 suspended jail sentence \u2014 criminal\u2014appellate jurisdiction\nA decision of the Court of Appeals holding that a contempt order arising from a child support action was civil rather than criminal where the court imposed an active thirty-day jail sentence suspended upon the posting of a cash bond, the payment of interest, the payment of attorney fees and the timely payment of future child support due under prior order, and that the trial court was without authority to adjudicate defendant in civil contempt because he complied with the previous orders before the hearing, is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that the order adjudicated defendant in criminal contempt and that a district court order of criminal contempt is appealable to the superior court rather than to the Court of Appeals.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 147 N.C. App. 566, 557 S.E.2d 126 (2001), vacating in part and affirming in part an order entered 30 August 1999 by Jones (William G.), J., in District Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 September 2002.\nJames, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by William K. Diehl, Jr. and Preston 0. Odom, III, for appellant Cynthia Flynn (formerly Reynolds).\nHorack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes, P.A., by Thomas R. Cannon and Kary C. Watson, for appellee David Reynolds."
  },
  "file_name": "0287-01",
  "first_page_order": 337,
  "last_page_order": 338
}