Lowder v. Lowder

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Lowder v. Lowder

415 S.E.2d 564, 106 N.C. App. 145, 1992 N.C. App. LEXIS 366

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 21, 1992

DocketNo. 9019SC1309

StatusPublished

This text of 415 S.E.2d 564 (Lowder v. Lowder) 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

Lowder v. Lowder, 415 S.E.2d 564, 106 N.C. App. 145, 1992 N.C. App. LEXIS 366 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

This is the twenty-sixth appeal in a series of cases emanating from Malcolm v. All Star Mills, Stanly Co. 79CVS015. In this latest guise, respondents once again have raised the jurisdiction issue which repeatedly has been rejected by this Court. We note nothing new in respondents’ arguments and find this appeal to be frivolous under N.C.R. App. P. 34(a)(1) and (a)(2). Pursuant to Rule 34(d) we direct that within not more than thirty days from the certification of this opinion respondents shall show cause in writing as to why this appeal should not be dismissed and why they should not be taxed for all reasonable expenses and costs incurred, including reasonable attorney fees and any other appropriate sanction. See N.C.R. App. P. 34(b)(1) and (b)(2); N.C.R. App. P. 35.

Remanded.

Judges LEWIS and Wynn concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

This is the twenty-sixth appeal in a series of cases emanating from Malcolm v. All Star Mills, Stanly Co. 79CVS015. In this latest guise, respondents once again have raised the jurisdiction issue which repeatedly has been rejected by this Court. We note nothing new in respondents’ arguments and find this appeal to be frivolous under N.C.R. App. P. 34(a)(1) and (a)(2). Pursuant to Rule 34(d) we direct that within not more than thirty days from the certification of this opinion respondents shall show cause in writing as to why this appeal should not be dismissed and why they should not be taxed for all reasonable expenses and costs incurred, including reasonable attorney fees and any other appropriate sanction. See N.C.R. App. P. 34(b)(1) and (b)(2); N.C.R. App. P. 35.

Remanded.

Judges LEWIS and Wynn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 S.E.2d 564, 106 N.C. App. 145, 1992 N.C. App. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowder-v-lowder-ncctapp-1992.