Last week’s batch of opinions from the Court of Appeals includes a procedurally complicated case in which the court granted a writ of certiorari–only to dismiss a large portion of the appeal “as untimely and interlocutory.”  The opinion shines light on several faulty presumptions that can trip up an appeal. Intrigued?  Read on.

In Engility v. Nell, the defendants sought review of two orders:  (1) a February 2017 order granting a motion to quash and imposing sanctions, and (2) a Rule 60 order denying relief as to the February 2017 order because the defendants contended that they had not received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard on the motion to quash.… Continue Reading

After Dogwood, it is fairly rare that an appellate court will dismiss an appeal for rules violations. However, that reluctance does not give carte blanche to appellate practitioners, as the Court of Appeals reminded us today. In Williamson v. Williamson, the appellant relied on “bald assertions of error absent citation to any legal authority.” Furthermore, the appellant did not include transcripts from the trial court hearings, which prevented the court from “meaningful appellate review.”… Continue Reading