{
  "id": 1511388,
  "name": "ANDREW H. AUSLEY, d/b/a AUSLEY APPRAISAL SERVICES v. BRYAN M. BISHOP",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ausley v. Bishop",
  "decision_date": "2002-11-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 287A02",
  "first_page": "422",
  "last_page": "422",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "356 N.C. 422"
    }
  ],
  "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": "564 S.E.2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N.C. App. 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9079778
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/150/0056-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 148,
    "char_count": 1602,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.701,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1309727172526261e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7658064234632984
    },
    "sha256": "32deafd924db841fea8563797dde3384634bbca22d1e541b37abcb1b812bf1b8",
    "simhash": "1:a0db608662a92072",
    "word_count": 267
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:54.672071+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice EDMUNDS did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ANDREW H. AUSLEY, d/b/a AUSLEY APPRAISAL SERVICES v. BRYAN M. BISHOP"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion.\nREVERSED.\nJustice EDMUNDS did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Haywood, Denny & Miller, L.L.P. by John R. Kincaid for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Randolf M. James for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANDREW H. AUSLEY, d/b/a AUSLEY APPRAISAL SERVICES v. BRYAN M. BISHOP\nNo. 287A02\n(Filed 22 November 2002)\nDamages and Remedies\u2014 two slander claims \u2014 one wrongly submitted \u2014 punitive damages \u2014 new trial not required\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals in this case is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that, although one of two slander counterclaims by defendant should not have been submitted to the jury in a bifurcated trial under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 ID-30, the trial court\u2019s instruction with respect to the issue of punitive damages that defendant must prove plaintiff acted with malice which was related to \u201cone or both of the slanders\u201d supports the jury\u2019s award of punitive damages based upon the slander claim that was upheld so that a new trial is not required on all issues relating to such claim.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S.\u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 150 N.C. App. 56, 564 S.E.2d 252 (2002), affirming in part and vacating in part a judgment entered 14 March 2000 by DeRamus, J.; reversing and remanding an order entered 1 August 2000 by Burke, J.; reversing in part and remanding an order entered 4 August 2000 by DeRamus, J., all in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 October 2002.\nHaywood, Denny & Miller, L.L.P. by John R. Kincaid for plaintiff-appellee.\nRandolf M. James for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0422-01",
  "first_page_order": 472,
  "last_page_order": 472
}