Duke Power Co. v. Flinchem

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Duke Power Co. v. Flinchem

296 S.E.2d 804, 59 N.C. App. 349, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 3124

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 2, 1982

DocketNo. 8123SC1363

StatusPublished

This text of 296 S.E.2d 804 (Duke Power Co. v. Flinchem) 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

Duke Power Co. v. Flinchem, 296 S.E.2d 804, 59 N.C. App. 349, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 3124 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

Respondents’ appeal violates a number of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. First, in violation of Rule 9(b)(4), the items constituting the record on appeal are not arranged in the order in which they occurred or were filed in the trial division, but are scattered in random fashion throughout the record. Second, there has been no attempt whatsoever to narrate the evidence as required by Rule 9(c)(1). Instead, respondents have simply included in the record the total record of evidence, consisting of the testimony of nineteen witnesses and comprising approximately 180 pages of the record on appeal, in question and answer form. Third, in violation of Rule 10(c), respondents have failed to properly identify and set out their assignments of error. Fourth, in violation of Rule 10(b), respondents have included in the record on appeal hundreds of exceptions which were not properly preserved for our review by action of counsel taken during the course of the trial. Finally, respondents’ brief, in form and content, is in repeated violation of the requirements of Rule 28. In short, the manner in which the appeal has been filed does not allow effective appellate review.

Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and failure to observe them is grounds for dismissal of the appeal. See Britt v. Allen, 291 N.C. 630, 231 S.E. 2d 607 (1977).

For the reasons stated, the appeal in this case must be and is

Dismissed.

Judges Vaughn and Webb concur.

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

WELLS, Judge.

Respondents’ appeal violates a number of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. First, in violation of Rule 9(b)(4), the items constituting the record on appeal are not arranged in the order in which they occurred or were filed in the trial division, but are scattered in random fashion throughout the record. Second, there has been no attempt whatsoever to narrate the evidence as required by Rule 9(c)(1). Instead, respondents have simply included in the record the total record of evidence, consisting of the testimony of nineteen witnesses and comprising approximately 180 pages of the record on appeal, in question and answer form. Third, in violation of Rule 10(c), respondents have failed to properly identify and set out their assignments of error. Fourth, in violation of Rule 10(b), respondents have included in the record on appeal hundreds of exceptions which were not properly preserved for our review by action of counsel taken during the course of the trial. Finally, respondents’ brief, in form and content, is in repeated violation of the requirements of Rule 28. In short, the manner in which the appeal has been filed does not allow effective appellate review.

Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and failure to observe them is grounds for dismissal of the appeal. See Britt v. Allen, 291 N.C. 630, 231 S.E. 2d 607 (1977).

For the reasons stated, the appeal in this case must be and is

Dismissed.

Judges Vaughn and Webb concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 S.E.2d 804, 59 N.C. App. 349, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 3124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duke-power-co-v-flinchem-ncctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack