Miller Grading & Construction Co. v. Luckey

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Miller Grading & Construction Co. v. Luckey

260 S.E.2d 774, 44 N.C. App. 378, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3258

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 18, 1979

DocketNo. 7927DC394

StatusPublished

This text of 260 S.E.2d 774 (Miller Grading & Construction Co. v. Luckey) 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

Miller Grading & Construction Co. v. Luckey, 260 S.E.2d 774, 44 N.C. App. 378, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3258 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.

Appellant violated Rule 9(c)(4) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure by failing to number the pages of the record on appeal. She also violated Rule 10(a), (c), by failing to make her exceptions in the record the basis of assignments of error and failing to list the exceptions after the assignments of error with identification of the pages in the record where they appear. In her brief, defendant failed to refer to the assignments of error and exceptions pertinent to the questions argued and failed to refer to pages of the record where they appear. This violates App. R. 28(b)(3).

Exceptions not preserved and set forth as required by the Rules are deemed abandoned. For these reasons the appeal is subject to dismissal. The Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory. Craver v. Craver, 298 N.C. 231, 258 S.E. 2d 357 (1979); State v. Brown, 42 N.C. App. 724, 257 S.E. 2d 668 (1979).

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Vaughn and Webb concur.

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

MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.

Appellant violated Rule 9(c)(4) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure by failing to number the pages of the record on appeal. She also violated Rule 10(a), (c), by failing to make her exceptions in the record the basis of assignments of error and failing to list the exceptions after the assignments of error with identification of the pages in the record where they appear. In her brief, defendant failed to refer to the assignments of error and exceptions pertinent to the questions argued and failed to refer to pages of the record where they appear. This violates App. R. 28(b)(3).

Exceptions not preserved and set forth as required by the Rules are deemed abandoned. For these reasons the appeal is subject to dismissal. The Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory. Craver v. Craver, 298 N.C. 231, 258 S.E. 2d 357 (1979); State v. Brown, 42 N.C. App. 724, 257 S.E. 2d 668 (1979).

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Vaughn and Webb concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 S.E.2d 774, 44 N.C. App. 378, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-grading-construction-co-v-luckey-ncctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack