Since 2015, this blog has frequently discussed whether the text of Appellate Rule 21 places restrictions on the Court of Appeals’ authority to grant relief by writ of certiorari. See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The Supreme Court has also written frequently about whether the text of Appellate Rule 21 places restrictions on the Court of Appeals’ discretionary authority to grant relief by writ of certiorari.… Continue Reading
As noted yesterday, the Supreme Court has been busy. Need further proof? How about the fact that the Supreme Court considered 279 “other matters” on Friday— a category that includes rulings on various substantive motions, PDRs, and writ petitions. By way of comparison, the number of “other matters” considered by the Supreme Court fell within the 134 to 182 range the last few times that opinions were released.… Continue Reading
Note: much of the information below comes from The American Lawyer’s October 23 “Daily Dicta,” by Jenna Greene.
He started as a pro se plaintiff alleging First Amendment (and other) violations by a number of federal judges, an FBI agent, and a US Marshal. Now William Bond has been represented by some of the heaviest of legal heavyweights as his case makes its way up towards the highest court in the land. … Continue Reading
On Friday, the Supreme Court of North Carolina reaffirmed that (1) a writ of certiorari remains the most powerful tool in an appellate court’s arsenal and (2) that the Appellate Rules do not place procedural restrictions on an appellate court’s authority to issue its writs. These issues have been churning for a long time. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. … Continue Reading
A few weeks ago, the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Connor v. Connor rejected an argument that a notice of appeal signed by a pro se litigant was defective under Appellate Rule 3(d) “and thus did not confer jurisdiction.” Appellate Rule 3(d) states that a notice of appeal must “be signed by counsel of record of the party or parties taking the appeal or by any such party not represented by counsel of record.”… Continue Reading
The UNC School of Government recently released an updated manual on abuse, neglect, dependency, and termination of parental rights. The online version of the updated manual is located here. Chapter 12 addresses appeals and is a must read for those working in this area of appellate practice. For more information on the manual and its purpose, see the School of Government’s blog post found here. … Continue Reading
Our appellate blogosphere has been filled with an unusual number of posts involving dismissed appeals. However, the North Carolina Court of Appeals on Tuesday bestowed leniency on two appeals, utilizing Appellate Rules 2 and 21 to reach the merits of both appeals. Curious as to what justified this cheerful news? Keep reading.
Sarno v. Sarno involved a family law appeal facing a potential fatal obstacle based on bizarre procedural facts: 1) a judgment that contained two different April 2016 file stamp dates, 2) no certificate of service for the judgment, 3) a record indicating that the judgment was not in the file on 12 May 2016, 4) a plaintiff who asserted that she had not received the judgment until 20 May 2016, and 5) notices of appeal not filed until well into June 2016.… Continue Reading
As a champion of the appellate courts’ broad certiorari powers, I am eager for the Supreme Court of North Carolina to review the legal questions raised by cases such as State v. Biddix and State v. Ledbetter I and II. For prior posts, see here , here, here, and here. Those questions include (1) whether there is a conflict between Appellate Rule 21 and N.C.… Continue Reading
The Supreme Court stated in Dogwood v. White Oak, 362 N.C. 191, 657 S.E.2d 361 (2008), that noncompliance with nonjurisdictional rules normally should not lead to the dismissal of an appeal. The Dogwood Court also stated that the requirements of Appellate Rule 28(b), which govern the content of an appellant’s brief, are generally nonjurisdictional. Nonetheless, in Edwards v. Foley the Court of Appeals held that the appellants’ failure to include in their principal brief a complete statement of appellate jurisdiction (as required by Appellate Rule 28(b)(4)) was a jurisdictional violation that required dismissal of the appeal—at least for interlocutory appeals.… Continue Reading
**Update: Defendant CHS has filed a petition for writ of certiorari, here.**
Last year, something unusual happened in a business court case. In the course of denying summary judgment to a defendant, Judge Gale recognized that the legal question presented was “significant and controlling” and “require[d] an interpretation of two opinions from the North Carolina Supreme Court.” Judge Gale “urge[d] the supreme court to docket the appeal” from his order in Kornegay Family Farms, LLC v.… Continue Reading