{
  "id": 12209849,
  "name": "MARGARET DICKSON, et al. v. ROBERT RUCHO, et al.; NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF THE NAACP, et al. v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dickson v. Rucho",
  "decision_date": "2016-02-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 201PA12-3",
  "first_page": "673",
  "last_page": "673",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "368 N.C. 673"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1368,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.713,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0521753411259057e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5542348221846138
    },
    "sha256": "35803191284e0f58e10083e8a60af79fceba7b8e153fc5a39f07d14c27c8332c",
    "simhash": "1:018cf11282a32ede",
    "word_count": 231
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:29.404016+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARGARET DICKSON, et al. v. ROBERT RUCHO, et al. NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF THE NAACP, et al. v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER\nPlaintiff-Appellants\u2019 Rule 31 Petition for Rehearing is denied as to the second and third issues. As to the remaining first issue, plaintiff-appellants\u2019 petition is dismissed on procedural grounds. Plaintiff-appellants waived review of this argument by failing to raise it in their brief on remand. See N.C. R. App. P. 28(a) (\u201cIssues not presented and discussed in a party\u2019s brief are deemed abandoned.\u201d); N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (\u201cIssues not presented in a party\u2019s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated, will be taken as abandoned.\u201d).\nThis Court\u2019s 18 December 2015 opinion is modified as follows: the sentence stating \u201cAlabama\u2019s Constitution does not contain a Whole County Provision\u201d is deleted, and the words in the next sentence, \u201cthat state,\u201d are replaced with the word, \u201cAlabama.\u201d Dickson v. Rucho, No. 201PA12-3, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 1281, at *34 (Dec. 18, 2015).\nBy order of the Court in Conference, this 11th day of February, 2016.\ns/Ervin, J.\nFor the Court\nWITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 11th day of February, 2016.\nCHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER Clerk of the Supreme Court\ns/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "s/Ervin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARGARET DICKSON, et al. v. ROBERT RUCHO, et al. NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF THE NAACP, et al. v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.\nFrom Wake County\nNo. 201PA12-3"
  },
  "file_name": "0673-01",
  "first_page_order": 823,
  "last_page_order": 823
}