Rice v. Peters
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HILL, Judge.
Petitioner contends the trial court erred in holding that he willfully refused to take the chemical breath test in violation of law.
We note there are no exceptions in the record on appeal. With no exceptions to the findings of fact, they are deemed to be correct and supported by competent, substantial evidence. The findings are thus conclusive on appeal and are not presented for appellate review. Durland v. Peters, Comr. of Motor Vehicles, 42 N.C. App. 25, 27, 255 S.E. 2d 650 (1979). The appeal itself, however, raises the question of whether the facts found and the conclusion of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. SykesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Montgomery v. North Carolina Department of Motor VehiclesDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1978
- Bell v. PowellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- Durland v. PetersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- Poag v. Powell, Comr. of Motor VehiclesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Stockwell v. DISTRICT COURT OF VERMONTSupreme Court of Vermont · 1983
- Mathis v. North Carolina Division of Motor VehiclesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- Powers v. TatumCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
- In re Suspension of License to Operate a Motor Vehicle of RogersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
- State v. GunterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.