{
  "id": 491838,
  "name": "RICHARD ALLEN OVERTON v. WILLIAM ROBERT PURVIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Overton v. Purvis",
  "decision_date": "2003-10-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 45A03",
  "first_page": "497",
  "last_page": "498",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "357 N.C. 497"
    }
  ],
  "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": "573 S.E.2d 219",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 N.C. App. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9251137
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/154/0543-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 2262,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.776,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.569807193289389e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35000631310937436
    },
    "sha256": "c7f6f084704b36478e15655e14749d5ed9153c9dae9f69465cc97f31af3ecca1",
    "simhash": "1:2c1b329bb70f81f8",
    "word_count": 374
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:54:45.083013+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RICHARD ALLEN OVERTON v. WILLIAM ROBERT PURVIS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals addressing only defendant\u2019s assignment of error as to the last clear chance doctrine. The result in the Court of Appeals did not require it to reach other issues properly preserved by defendant and raised on appeal. These remaining issues relate not only to the amended judgment reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeals, but also to three additional orders entered 6 June 2001 and appealed by defendant in his notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. Because we now reverse the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision as to the only issue it addressed, on remand, that court should also consider defendant\u2019s remaining issues.\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Blount Law Firm, PA, by Marvin K. Blount III, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Walker, Clark, Allen, Grice & Ammons, LLP, by Jerry A. Allen and Gay P. Stanley, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RICHARD ALLEN OVERTON v. WILLIAM ROBERT PURVIS\nNo. 45A03\n(Filed 2 October 2003)\nNegligence\u2014 last clear chance \u2014 hunter struck while standing in roadway\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred by instructing on last clear chance in an action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff when he was struck by defendant\u2019s vehicle while standing in the roadway in an attempt to protect hunting dogs crossing the roadway is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that defendant, in maintaining a proper lookout, would see him, slow down and prepare to stop; that plaintiff was in a helpless peril from which he could not escape by the exercise of reasonable care immediately prior to being struck by defendant\u2019s vehicle; and that the evidence supports a reasonable inference that defendant had the time and means to avoid the accident by the exercise of reasonable care after he discovered, or should have discovered, plaintiff\u2019s helpless peril.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 154 N.C. App. 543, 573 S.E.2d 219 (2002), reversing and remanding an amended judgment entered 18 June 2001 by Judge Quentin T. Sumner in Superior Court, Pitt County. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 September 2003.\nThe Blount Law Firm, PA, by Marvin K. Blount III, for plaintiff-appellant.\nWalker, Clark, Allen, Grice & Ammons, LLP, by Jerry A. Allen and Gay P. Stanley, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0497-01",
  "first_page_order": 543,
  "last_page_order": 544
}