Piguerra v. Piguerra

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Piguerra v. Piguerra

282 S.E.2d 567, 54 N.C. App. 188, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2794

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 6, 1981

DocketNo. 8119DC144

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 S.E.2d 567 (Piguerra v. Piguerra) 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

Piguerra v. Piguerra, 282 S.E.2d 567, 54 N.C. App. 188, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2794 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin (Harry C.), Judge.

Plaintiff gave notice of appeal on 5 September 1980. The record on appeal was filed in this Court on 10 February 1981, more than 150 days from the date notice of appeal was given, in violation of Rule 12(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. No extension of time within which to file the record on appeal was requested or granted by this Court. N.C.R. App. P. 27(c). The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are man-datpry. Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126 (1930); In re Allen, 31 N.C. App. 597, 230 S.E. 2d 423 (1976). The appeal must be dismissed.

We also note that plaintiff and defendant failed to file the statement under oath required by N.C.G.S. 50A-9(a) in proceedings involving child custody.

Appeal dismissed.-

Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and BECTON concur.

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

Martin (Harry C.), Judge.

Plaintiff gave notice of appeal on 5 September 1980. The record on appeal was filed in this Court on 10 February 1981, more than 150 days from the date notice of appeal was given, in violation of Rule 12(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. No extension of time within which to file the record on appeal was requested or granted by this Court. N.C.R. App. P. 27(c). The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are man-datpry. Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126 (1930); In re Allen, 31 N.C. App. 597, 230 S.E. 2d 423 (1976). The appeal must be dismissed.

We also note that plaintiff and defendant failed to file the statement under oath required by N.C.G.S. 50A-9(a) in proceedings involving child custody.

Appeal dismissed.-

Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and BECTON concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 S.E.2d 567, 54 N.C. App. 188, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piguerra-v-piguerra-ncctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack