Schafran v. A & H Cleaners, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Schafran v. A & H Cleaners, Inc.

209 S.E.2d 35, 23 N.C. App. 367, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2099

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 16, 1974

DocketNo. 7411SC640

StatusPublished

This text of 209 S.E.2d 35 (Schafran v. A & H Cleaners, Inc.) 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

Schafran v. A & H Cleaners, Inc., 209 S.E.2d 35, 23 N.C. App. 367, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2099 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

MARTIN, Judge.

The order appealed from was entered on 25 February 1974. Motion to extend the time for docketing the case on appeal was made on 3 June 1974, and granted by the trial judge on 4 June 1974, both after the expiration of the 90 day period allowed within which to docket the record on appeal. The trial judge had no authority to extend the time for docketing by an order entered after the expiration of the 90 days allowed by Rule 5. Brown v. Smith, N. C. Court of Appeals (filed 2 October 1974) ; Lambert v. Patterson, 17 N.C. App. 148, 193 S.E. 2d 380 (1972) ; State v. Lassiter, 18 N.C. App. 208, 196 S.E. 2d 592 (1973). Failure to comply with Rule 5 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals subjects the case to dismissal under Rule 17, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Morris concur.

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

MARTIN, Judge.

The order appealed from was entered on 25 February 1974. Motion to extend the time for docketing the case on appeal was made on 3 June 1974, and granted by the trial judge on 4 June 1974, both after the expiration of the 90 day period allowed within which to docket the record on appeal. The trial judge had no authority to extend the time for docketing by an order entered after the expiration of the 90 days allowed by Rule 5. Brown v. Smith, N. C. Court of Appeals (filed 2 October 1974) ; Lambert v. Patterson, 17 N.C. App. 148, 193 S.E. 2d 380 (1972) ; State v. Lassiter, 18 N.C. App. 208, 196 S.E. 2d 592 (1973). Failure to comply with Rule 5 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals subjects the case to dismissal under Rule 17, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Morris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 S.E.2d 35, 23 N.C. App. 367, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schafran-v-a-h-cleaners-inc-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack