Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Jones v. Harrelson and Smith Contractors, LLC

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 16, 2008No. COA05-1183-2Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTyson, Judge

We all agree that plaintiff violated multiple nonjurisdictional requirements of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt Co., LLC v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 657 S.E.2d 361 (2008) (hereinafter referred to as Dogwood T). The majority’s opinion erroneously disregards prior precedents that impose sanctions for similar violations to those at bar and concludes plaintiff’s violations do not rise to the level of “gross” or “substantial” warranting any type of sanction. See Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt Co., LLC v. White Oak Transp. Co., 192 N.C. App. 114, 119, 665…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Dogwood Development & Management Co. LLC v. White Oak Transport Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
  2. Viar v. North Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2005
  3. Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
  4. Newton v. Standard Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  5. Hardy v. TolerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API