Spartan Equipment Co. v. Troitino & Brown, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Spartan Equipment Co. v. Troitino & Brown, Inc.

264 S.E.2d 759, 46 N.C. App. 343, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2820

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 15, 1980

DocketNo. 7926SC918

StatusPublished

This text of 264 S.E.2d 759 (Spartan Equipment Co. v. Troitino & Brown, 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

Spartan Equipment Co. v. Troitino & Brown, Inc., 264 S.E.2d 759, 46 N.C. App. 343, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2820 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

HILL, Judge.

Appellant violated Rule 10(b) and (c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure by failing to number its exceptions in the record and by failing to list the exceptions after the assignments of error identified by their number and by pages in the record at which they appear. It further violated Appellate Rule 28(b)(1) by failing to give a statement of questions presented for review in its brief. It likewise failed to present the pertinent assignments of error and exceptions after each argument in its brief as required by Appellate Rule 28(b)(3). For these reasons, the appeal is subject to dismissal.

[344]*344Exceptions not preserved and set forth as required by the Rules are deemed abandoned. 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).

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and WEBB concur.

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

HILL, Judge.

Appellant violated Rule 10(b) and (c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure by failing to number its exceptions in the record and by failing to list the exceptions after the assignments of error identified by their number and by pages in the record at which they appear. It further violated Appellate Rule 28(b)(1) by failing to give a statement of questions presented for review in its brief. It likewise failed to present the pertinent assignments of error and exceptions after each argument in its brief as required by Appellate Rule 28(b)(3). For these reasons, the appeal is subject to dismissal.

[344]*344Exceptions not preserved and set forth as required by the Rules are deemed abandoned. 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).

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and WEBB concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 S.E.2d 759, 46 N.C. App. 343, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spartan-equipment-co-v-troitino-brown-inc-ncctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack