{
  "id": 4152287,
  "name": "BROCK AND SCOTT HOLDINGS, INC. v. KIM D. WEST",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brock & Scott Holdings, Inc. v. West",
  "decision_date": "2010-06-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 352PA09",
  "first_page": "235",
  "last_page": "248",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "364 N.C. 235"
    }
  ],
  "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": "679 S.E.2d 507",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2009,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 S.E.2d 338",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562460
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0381-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 3125,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.685,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1350316176734628
    },
    "sha256": "378e268863d8d9dc9abc5a0d1d0a2242a4302f6350bd385af4a7e783ba03cfca",
    "simhash": "1:2a2e05f21465a8b2",
    "word_count": 521
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:08:37.384656+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BROCK AND SCOTT HOLDINGS, INC. v. KIM D. WEST"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nDISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.\nIN THE MATTER OF: J.A.G.\n) ) )\nORDER\nNo. 69P10\nThe Court allows the State\u2019s petition for discretionary review for the limited purpose of remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of our decision in In re D.S., No. 273PA09 (June 17, 2010).\nBy Order of the Court in Conference, this 16th day of June, 2010.\nFor the Court\nHudson, J.\nSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAMIEN SMITH\n) ) ) ) )\nORDER\nNo. 58P10\nThe Court allows the State\u2019s petition for discretionary review for the limited purpose of remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of our decision in In re D.S., No. 273PA09 (June 17, 2010).\nBy Order of the Court in Conference, this 16th day of June, 2010.\nFor the Court\nHudson, J.\nWILLIAM L. UNDERWOOD v. TERESA W. UNDERWOOD\n) ) ) ) )\nORDER\n\u2021\u00ab*\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021\u2021*\u2021(*\u2021)\u00ab*\nNo. 447P09\nWe treat this petition as a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and allow for the limited purpose of remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Walters v. Walters, 307 N.C. 381, 298 S.E.2d 338 (1983).\nBy order of this Court in Conference, this 16th day of June, 2010.\nFor the Court\nHudson, J.\nMoss Creek Homeowners Ass\u2019n. v. Bissette Case below: 202 N.C. App.-(2 February 2010) No. 107P10 1. Defs\u2019 and Third-Party Pits\u2019 (Ted and Mary Bissette) PDR Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 (COA08-1156-2) 2. Pits\u2019 and Third-Party Defs\u2019 Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 1. Denied 06/16/10 2. Dismissed as Moot 06/16/10 Puckett v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Corr. Case below: 202 N.C. App.-(16 February 2010) No. 126P10 Pit\u2019s PDR Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 (COA09-782) Denied 06/16/10 Reese v. Mecklenburg Cty. Case below: 200 N.C. App.-(3 November 2009) No. 505P09 Pit\u2019s PDR Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 (COA08-1417) Denied 06/16/10 State v. Arrington Case below: 202 N.C. App. \u2014\u25a0 (2 March 2010) No. 132P10 Def\u2019s PDR Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 (COA09-660) Denied 06/16/10 State v. Arrington Case below: 198 N.C. App.-(21 July 2009) No. 138P10 Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 (COA08-1355) Denied 06/16/10 State v. Berrio Case below: 202 N.C. App.-(19 January 2010) No. 087P10 Def\u2019s PDR Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 (COA09-608) Denied 06/16/10 State v. Blakeman Case below: 202 N.C. App.-(2 February 2010) No. 102P10 Def\u2019s PDR Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 (COA09-699) Denied 06/16/10 State v. Breathette Case below: 202 N.C. App.-(2 March 2010) No. 154P10 Def\u2019s PDR Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 (COA09-1007) . Denied 06/16/10 State v. Brennan Case below: 203 N.C. App.-(4 May 2010) No. 211P10 State\u2019s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA09-1362) Allowed 05/21/10\nPETITION TO REHEAR",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard P. Cook, and Brock & Scott, PLLC, by Richard L. Jackson, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "No brief for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BROCK AND SCOTT HOLDINGS, INC. v. KIM D. WEST\nNo. 352PA09\n(Filed 17 June 2010)\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-3I of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 198 N.C. App.-, 679 S.E.2d 507 (2009), dismissing plaintiffs appeal from a judgment and order entered on 3 June 2008 by Judge James H. Faison, IIP in District Court, Pender County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 May 2010.\nRichard P. Cook, and Brock & Scott, PLLC, by Richard L. Jackson, for plaintiff-appellant.\nNo brief for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0235-01",
  "first_page_order": 329,
  "last_page_order": 342
}