Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Alexander v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 1, 2003No. COA02-767Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLevinson, Judge

While I agree with the majority’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ appeal, I respectfully dissent from the denial of defendants’ motion for attorney fees.

Under N.C.R. App. R 34, “Frivolous appeals; Sanctions” this Court is authorized under certain circumstances to impose sanctions, including attorneys’ fees, upon a party:(a) A court of the appellate division may ... impose a sanction against a party or attorney or both when the court determines that an appeal or any proceeding in an appeal was frivolous because of one or more of the following:(1) the appeal was not well grounded in fact and warranted…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Romig v. Jefferson-Pilot Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  2. Steadman v. SteadmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API