Bradley v. Cumberland Cty.

822 S.E.2d 416, 262 N.C. App. 376
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 20, 2018
DocketCOA18-334
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 822 S.E.2d 416 (Bradley v. Cumberland Cty.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bradley v. Cumberland Cty., 822 S.E.2d 416, 262 N.C. App. 376 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

ZACHARY, Judge.

*377 Plaintiff James A. Bradley appeals from an Opinion and Award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. In that Plaintiff failed to establish that his notice of appeal was properly and timely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss Plaintiff's appeal.

I. Background

On 28 March 2017, Deputy Commissioner Lori A. Gaines issued an Opinion and Award concluding Plaintiff was entitled to workers' compensation benefits and awarding Plaintiff disability benefits. Defendants appealed to the Full Commission, and on 7 November 2017, the Full Commission entered an Opinion and Award reversing in part and affirming in part the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award.

Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal to this Court. Plaintiff's counsel printed the notice of appeal on his firm's letterhead and addressed the notice to Commissioner Phillip A. Baddour, III of the Industrial Commission, confirmation receipt requested. Although the notice indicated that it was filed with the Industrial Commission "via Electronic Filing Portal," it lacked any time stamp indicating if or when the Industrial Commission received Plaintiff's notice of appeal. At the bottom of the notice was a notation of "cc via email: Dayle Flammia, Counsel for Defendants," indicating that opposing counsel was to receive a copy of the notice of appeal via email. Further, Plaintiff failed to include a certificate of service in the record on appeal demonstrating how and when Plaintiff served opposing counsel with a copy of the notice of appeal. Finally, the body of the notice failed to state the court to which appeal was being taken.

II. Appellate Jurisdiction

This Court has the power to inquire into jurisdiction at any time, even sua sponte . Lee v. Winget Rd., LLC , 204 N.C. App. 96 , 98, 693 S.E.2d 684 , 687 (2010). We must have jurisdiction to hear the cases before us, and *418 our power to hear those cases must be "properly invoked by an interested party." *378 Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co., LLC v. White Oak Transp. Co. , 362 N.C. 191 , 197, 657 S.E.2d 361 , 364 (2008). Both statute and our Rules of Appellate Procedure provide the proper method by which interested parties may successfully invoke our jurisdiction. Id. at 197, 657 S.E.2d at 364-65 , 362 N.C. 191 ("The appellant's compliance with the jurisdictional rules governing the taking of an appeal is the linchpin that connects the appellate division with the trial division and confers upon the appellate court the authority to act in a particular case."). When an appealing party fails to follow the steps necessary to vest this Court with jurisdiction, we cannot review the case on the merits, and the appeal must be dismissed. Id. at 197 , 657 S.E.2d at 364 , 362 N.C. 191 .

Generally, violations of Rule 3 are jurisdictional and warrant dismissal of an appeal. Id. at 197 , 657 S.E.2d at 365 , 362 N.C. 191 (citing Bailey v. State , 353 N.C. 142 , 156, 540 S.E.2d 313 , 322 (2000) ). However, certain violations of the appellate rules are nonjurisdictional and do not invariably warrant dismissal of an appeal. Id. at 200, 657 S.E.2d at 366-67 , 362 N.C. 191 . Non-jurisdictional rules are those that are "designed primarily to keep the appellate process flowing in an orderly manner." Id. at 198 , 657 S.E.2d at 365 , 362 N.C. 191 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The violation of non-jurisdictional rules warrants dismissal only when the violation or violations amount to a "substantial failure or gross violation" of the Appellate Rules that impairs this Court's task of review or frustrates the adversarial process. Id. at 200 , 657 S.E.2d at 366 , 362 N.C. 191 .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re: M.A.C., M.D.C., I.A.J.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2025
State v. Wagner
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2025
State v. Juran
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2024
Erickson v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety
826 S.E.2d 821 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2019)
Wright v. Alltech Wiring & Controls
826 S.E.2d 218 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
822 S.E.2d 416, 262 N.C. App. 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-cumberland-cty-ncctapp-2018.