{
  "id": 2988142,
  "name": "JAY T. PINTACUDA and wife LUCRETIA PINTACUDA v. JACK ZUCKEBERG",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pintacuda v. Zuckeberg",
  "decision_date": "2004-04-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 509A03",
  "first_page": "211",
  "last_page": "212",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "358 N.C. 211"
    }
  ],
  "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": "583 S.E.2d 348",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 N.C. App. 617",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8957756
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/159/0617-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 153,
    "char_count": 1672,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.726,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08657512465012439
    },
    "sha256": "2836227d47c2a253ce109150d9d5d73b597250b4cbc389d170fa62f24193bbbd",
    "simhash": "1:397d35f7d0b3aeda",
    "word_count": 263
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:12:52.416221+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "REVERSED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JAY T. PINTACUDA and wife LUCRETIA PINTACUDA v. JACK ZUCKEBERG"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nAs to the issue on direct appeal, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion. Further, we conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to the additional issues was improvidently allowed.\nREVERSED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roberts & Stevens, RA., by Jacqueline D. Grant and Kenneth R. Hunt, for plaintiffs-appellees.",
      "Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes, & Davis, P.A., by Dale A. Curriden and Vaughn S. Monroe, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAY T. PINTACUDA and wife LUCRETIA PINTACUDA v. JACK ZUCKEBERG\nNo. 509A03\n(Filed 2 April 2004)\nMotor Vehicles\u2014 car stopping in highway \u2014 skidding motorcyclist \u2014 proximate cause\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals that summary judgment for defendant was inappropriate on the issue of proximate cause in an action by plaintiff motorcyclist to recover for injuries received when defendant stopped his car on an interstate highway in front of plaintiff and plaintiffs motorcycle skidded when he swerved into an adjoining lane is reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion that plaintiffs own deposition testimony shows that defendant\u2019s act of stopping his vehicle was merely a circumstance of the accident and not the proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019 injuries.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 159 N.C. App. 617, 583 S.E.2d 348 (2003), reversing an order entered 17 May 2002 by Judge Robert D. Lewis, in Superior Court, Buncombe County. On 1 October 2003, the Supreme Court granted discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 March 2004.\nRoberts & Stevens, RA., by Jacqueline D. Grant and Kenneth R. Hunt, for plaintiffs-appellees.\nVan Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes, & Davis, P.A., by Dale A. Curriden and Vaughn S. Monroe, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0211-01",
  "first_page_order": 243,
  "last_page_order": 244
}