Moore v. Strickland

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Moore v. Strickland

209 S.E.2d 830, 23 N.C. App. 732, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2204

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 20, 1974

Docket744DC787

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 209 S.E.2d 830 (Moore v. Strickland) 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

Moore v. Strickland, 209 S.E.2d 830, 23 N.C. App. 732, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2204 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

The appellant in his record on appeal undertakes to set out 20 assginments of error based on a like number of exceptions, without making any attempt to group his assignments of error. The exceptions appear nowhere in the record except in the purported assignments of error. Such exceptions are completely ineffectual and will not be considered on appeal. Rule' 21, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals. State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348, 154 S.E. 2d 476 (1967) ; Dilday v. Board of Education, 267 N.C. 438, 148 S.E. 2d 513 (1966) ; Bunn v. Bunn, 262 N.C. 67, 136 S.E. 2d 240 (1964) ; In re Register, 5 N.C. App. 29, 167 S.E. 2d 802 (1969) ; Midgett v. Midgett, 5 N.C. App. 74, 168 S.E. 2d 53 (1969). However, in the absence of exceptions, or when exceptions have not been properly preserved in accordance with our Rules of Practice, the appeal will be taken as an exception to the judgment. Holden v. Holden, 245 N.C. 1, 95 S.E. 2d 118 (1956). We are, therefore, limited to the question whether error appears on the face of the record.

We find no error appearing on the face of the record. Indeed, our review of the entire record reveals no error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Baley concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

The appellant in his record on appeal undertakes to set out 20 assginments of error based on a like number of exceptions, without making any attempt to group his assignments of error. The exceptions appear nowhere in the record except in the purported assignments of error. Such exceptions are completely ineffectual and will not be considered on appeal. Rule' 21, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals. State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348, 154 S.E. 2d 476 (1967) ; Dilday v. Board of Education, 267 N.C. 438, 148 S.E. 2d 513 (1966) ; Bunn v. Bunn, 262 N.C. 67, 136 S.E. 2d 240 (1964) ; In re Register, 5 N.C. App. 29, 167 S.E. 2d 802 (1969) ; Midgett v. Midgett, 5 N.C. App. 74, 168 S.E. 2d 53 (1969). However, in the absence of exceptions, or when exceptions have not been properly preserved in accordance with our Rules of Practice, the appeal will be taken as an exception to the judgment. Holden v. Holden, 245 N.C. 1, 95 S.E. 2d 118 (1956). We are, therefore, limited to the question whether error appears on the face of the record.

We find no error appearing on the face of the record. Indeed, our review of the entire record reveals no error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Baley concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 S.E.2d 830, 23 N.C. App. 732, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-strickland-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack