Dickson v. Rucho

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Dickson v. Rucho

789 S.E.2d 436, 368 N.C. 673, 2016 N.C. LEXIS 405

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 11, 2016

DocketNo. 201PA12-3

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 789 S.E.2d 436 (Dickson v. Rucho) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dickson v. Rucho, 789 S.E.2d 436, 368 N.C. 673, 2016 N.C. LEXIS 405 (N.C. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellants’ Rule 31 Petition for Rehearing is denied as to the second and third issues. As to the remaining first issue, plaintiff-appellants’ 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) (“Issues not presented and discussed in a party’s brief are deemed abandoned.”); N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (“Issues not presented in a party’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated, will be taken as abandoned.”).

This Court’s 18 December 2015 opinion is modified as follows: the sentence stating “Alabama’s Constitution does not contain a Whole County Provision” is deleted, and the words in the next sentence, “that state,” are replaced with the word, “Alabama.” Dickson v. Rucho, No. 201PA12-3, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 1281, at *34 (Dec. 18, 2015).

By order of the Court in Conference, this 11th day of February, 2016.

s/Ervin, J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 11th day of February, 2016.

CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER Clerk of the Supreme Court

s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk

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

ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellants’ Rule 31 Petition for Rehearing is denied as to the second and third issues. As to the remaining first issue, plaintiff-appellants’ 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) (“Issues not presented and discussed in a party’s brief are deemed abandoned.”); N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (“Issues not presented in a party’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated, will be taken as abandoned.”).

This Court’s 18 December 2015 opinion is modified as follows: the sentence stating “Alabama’s Constitution does not contain a Whole County Provision” is deleted, and the words in the next sentence, “that state,” are replaced with the word, “Alabama.” Dickson v. Rucho, No. 201PA12-3, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 1281, at *34 (Dec. 18, 2015).

By order of the Court in Conference, this 11th day of February, 2016.

s/Ervin, J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 11th day of February, 2016.

CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER Clerk of the Supreme Court

s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 S.E.2d 436, 368 N.C. 673, 2016 N.C. LEXIS 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickson-v-rucho-nc-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack