{
  "id": 3797030,
  "name": "DAVID G. JONES v. EDWARD D. RATLEY and BEST ROOFING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Ratley",
  "decision_date": "2005-10-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 114A05",
  "first_page": "50",
  "last_page": "50",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "360 N.C. 50"
    }
  ],
  "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": "607 S.E.2d 38",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12632295
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/607/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N.C. App. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8468420
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/168/0126-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1468,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.723,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7710994026850012e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7118764453062707
    },
    "sha256": "ef7239d14c603d8c25844697a97eb4eecc3bb60ebace07d06e1bb7fdc7834aab",
    "simhash": "1:bacbd69e21a9b5cc",
    "word_count": 244
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:28:24.883894+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVID G. JONES v. EDWARD D. RATLEY and BEST ROOFING COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No appearance or brief for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Douglas S. Harris for defendant-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVID G. JONES v. EDWARD D. RATLEY and BEST ROOFING COMPANY\nNo. 114A05\n(Filed 7 October 2005)\nSmall Claims\u2014 de novo appeal to district court \u2014 applicable procedures \u2014 necessity for findings and conclusions\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals affirming a district court order requiring defendant to repay to plaintiff $2000 that plaintiff allegedly paid to defendant in error is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals that (1) the informal processes of the small claims court do not continue in a de novo appeal to the district court; (2) the district court erred by failing to set forth proper findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether plaintiff had been obligated to pay $2,000 to defendant; and (3) the district court must address the issue as to whether plaintiff should have had notice of a voluntary dismissal taken in an earlier action by the present defendant.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 168 N.C. App. 126, 607 S.E.2d 38 (2005), affirming a judgment entered on 8 August 2003 by Judge Thomas G. Foster, Jr. in District Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 September 2005.\nNo appearance or brief for plaintiff-appellee.\nDouglas S. Harris for defendant-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0050-01",
  "first_page_order": 122,
  "last_page_order": 122
}