{
  "id": 2986346,
  "name": "FANNY LEE BROWN, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for SCOTTIE NOBLES, a minor v. FLOYD TRAVIS MILLSAP",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Millsap",
  "decision_date": "2004-04-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 640A03",
  "first_page": "212",
  "last_page": "213",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "358 N.C. 212"
    }
  ],
  "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": "588 S.E.2d 71",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1604,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.697,
    "sha256": "3016a51aeffdcfa162ee2afe6745b7b6aca05e687f73d390309d565f89744408",
    "simhash": "1:a8ed743d7541d172",
    "word_count": 258
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:12:52.416221+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FANNY LEE BROWN, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for SCOTTIE NOBLES, a minor v. FLOYD TRAVIS MILLSAP"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. Craig Wright for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Russ, Worth, Cheatwood & Hancox, by Philip H. Cheatwood, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Robert H. Griffin and Jaye E. Bingham, on behalf of Nationwide Insurance Company, amicus curiae."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FANNY LEE BROWN, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for SCOTTIE NOBLES, a minor v. FLOYD TRAVIS MILLSAP\nNo. 640A03\n(Filed 2 April 2004)\nCosts\u2014 attorney fees \u2014 amount of judgment \u2014 costs and prejudgment interest \u2014 addition to compensatory damages\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court improperly added court costs of $435 and prejudgment interest of $669.76 to the jury verdict of $9,500 in compensatory damages to find that the judgment obtained exceeded the $10,000 limit for awarding attorney fees under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.1 is reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion that, although the trial court erred in adding discretionary court costs to the verdict, prejudgment interest of $669.76 should have been added because it is automatically added to the award to compensate the prevailing party, and the $10,000 limit was thus exceeded even if court costs are not added to the verdict.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 161 N.C. App.-, 588 S.E.2d 71 (2003), reversing a judgment signed 28 September 2002 nunc pro tunc by Judge Wiley F. Bowen in Superior Court, Columbus County. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 March 2004.\nT. Craig Wright for plaintiff-appellee.\nRuss, Worth, Cheatwood & Hancox, by Philip H. Cheatwood, for defendant-appellant.\nCranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Robert H. Griffin and Jaye E. Bingham, on behalf of Nationwide Insurance Company, amicus curiae."
  },
  "file_name": "0212-01",
  "first_page_order": 244,
  "last_page_order": 245
}