{
  "id": 4150475,
  "name": "ELIZABETH ELAINE PARDUE v. MICHAEL BRINEGAR and wife, APRIL B. BRINEGAR; FRANCES BRINEGAR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pardue v. Brinegar",
  "decision_date": "2010-01-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 387A09",
  "first_page": "799",
  "last_page": "799",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "363 N.C. 799"
    }
  ],
  "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": "681 S.E.2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2009,
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 133,
    "char_count": 1457,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.732,
    "sha256": "662b48d054b5a6e6c1e381ba17998e6e814cc16624763d69f21e31eb426338f9",
    "simhash": "1:909934bf6289d5ee",
    "word_count": 239
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:39.869638+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELIZABETH ELAINE PARDUE v. MICHAEL BRINEGAR and wife, APRIL B. BRINEGAR; FRANCES BRINEGAR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further remand to the trial court for entry of judgment for plaintiff.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McElwee Firm, PLLC, by John M. Logsdon, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Stone & Christy, P.A., by Bryant D. \u2022 Webster, for defendantappellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELIZABETH ELAINE PARDUE v. MICHAEL BRINEGAR and wife, APRIL B. BRINEGAR; FRANCES BRINEGAR\nNo. 387A09\n(Filed 29 January 2010)\nBoundaries\u2014 line running \u201cup the branch\u201d \u2014 intent of grantors\nA decision of the Court of Appeals that the ground location of points on a boundary in addition to three undisputed points was a factual question for the jury is reversed for the reason stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion that language in the deeds to the parties stating that the boundary line runs \u201cup the branch\u201d unequivocally established the branch or stream as the natural boundary between the two properties, and the boundary was not two straight lines running between the undisputed markers.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 199 N.C. App.-, 681 S.E.2d 435 (2009), affirming both an order denying plaintiffs motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a judgment entered on 16 May 2008 by Judge Michael D. Duncan in District Court, Wilkes County. Heard in the Supreme Court 6 January 2010.\nMcElwee Firm, PLLC, by John M. Logsdon, for plaintiff-appellant.\nStone & Christy, P.A., by Bryant D. \u2022 Webster, for defendantappellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0799-01",
  "first_page_order": 837,
  "last_page_order": 837
}