{
  "id": 3798051,
  "name": "MURPHY FAMILY FARMS and MURPHY FARMS, INC. d/b/a MURPHY FAMILY FARMS, Petitioners v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Murphy Family Farms v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources",
  "decision_date": "2004-12-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 558A03",
  "first_page": "180",
  "last_page": "181",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "359 N.C. 180"
    }
  ],
  "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": "585 S.E.2d 446",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 N.C. App. 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8955804
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/160/0338-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2215,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.731,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1126959525439514
    },
    "sha256": "8b5bab96283df985f584d36ee03ebb720f593dd2ad1584e788e77e7a9c53dbf8",
    "simhash": "1:f918949f622ba11c",
    "word_count": 345
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:11:02.499353+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice NEWBY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MURPHY FAMILY FARMS and MURPHY FARMS, INC. d/b/a MURPHY FAMILY FARMS, Petitioners v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals as to the issue in petitioners\u2019 appeal relating to whether the breach and discharge constituted one separate violation, eight separate violations, or one eight-day continuous violation. Further, we hold respondent\u2019s petition for discretionary review was improvidently allowed. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to Superior Court, Duplin County for reinstatement of the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nREVERSED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.\nJustice NEWBY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton, PLLC, by Henry W. Jones, Jr. and Brian S. Edlin, for petitioners-appellants/appellees.",
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Jill B. Hickey and Francis W. Crawley, Special Deputy Attorneys General, for respondentappellee/appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MURPHY FAMILY FARMS and MURPHY FARMS, INC. d/b/a MURPHY FAMILY FARMS, Petitioners v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent\nNo. 558A03\n(Filed 17 December 2004)\nEnvironmental Law\u2014 hog waste \u2014 one violation of water quality standards\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals that eight civil penalties could be imposed on petitioner for violations of the dissolved oxygen water quality standards by discharging hog waste into the waters of this State is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that only one violation occurred when all of the waste from a lagoon was discharged in one day from a lagoon breach, and it was inappropriate to impose civil penalties based on the number of days DENR chose to test the waters.\nAppeal by petitioners pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 160 N.C. App. 338, 585 S.E.2d 446 (2003), affirming in part and reversing in part a judgment entered on 15 May 2002 by Judge Benjamin G. Alford in Superior Court, Duplin County. On 5 February 2004, the Supreme Court granted petitioners\u2019 and respondent\u2019s petitions for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court in the 1767 Chowan County Courthouse 8 October 2004.\nJordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton, PLLC, by Henry W. Jones, Jr. and Brian S. Edlin, for petitioners-appellants/appellees.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Jill B. Hickey and Francis W. Crawley, Special Deputy Attorneys General, for respondentappellee/appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0180-01",
  "first_page_order": 218,
  "last_page_order": 219
}