Laws v. Palmer

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Laws v. Palmer

167 S.E.2d 49, 4 N.C. App. 510, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1537

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 30, 1969

DocketNo. 6925DC24

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 S.E.2d 49 (Laws v. Palmer) 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

Laws v. Palmer, 167 S.E.2d 49, 4 N.C. App. 510, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1537 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Mallard, C.J.

This case was tried and judgment entered under date of 9 August 1968. The record on appeal was not docketed in the Court of Appeals within the time permitted under Rule- 5 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals. The ninety days allowed in Rule 5 for docketing the record on appeal in this case expired on Thursday, 7 November 1968. The record on appeal was not docketed until 11 November 1968. No order was entered extending the time in which to docket the record on appeal. Under Rule 48, the case is subject to dismissal and should be and is dismissed by this Court ex mero motu for failure to comply with the rules.

However, we have also reviewed the record before us and find no prejudicial error. We think the judgment of the District Court is correct.

Appeal dismissed.

Britt and Pareer, JJ., concur.

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

Mallard, C.J.

This case was tried and judgment entered under date of 9 August 1968. The record on appeal was not docketed in the Court of Appeals within the time permitted under Rule- 5 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals. The ninety days allowed in Rule 5 for docketing the record on appeal in this case expired on Thursday, 7 November 1968. The record on appeal was not docketed until 11 November 1968. No order was entered extending the time in which to docket the record on appeal. Under Rule 48, the case is subject to dismissal and should be and is dismissed by this Court ex mero motu for failure to comply with the rules.

However, we have also reviewed the record before us and find no prejudicial error. We think the judgment of the District Court is correct.

Appeal dismissed.

Britt and Pareer, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E.2d 49, 4 N.C. App. 510, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laws-v-palmer-ncctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack