This blog highlights developments in the appellate courts that affect business interests in North Carolina. We concentrate on civil decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court and the North Carolina Court of Appeals, as well as civil decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that interpret or apply North Carolina substantive law.
The NC Court of Appeals released 22 published opinions today, half criminal, half civil. There are no dissents. More on these cases later.
1 Comments:
Anonymous said...
A new twist on Rule 2?
Among today's cases, the CoA's unpublished opinion in NC Atty Gen. Roy Cooper v. McAden (COA07-165) was fascinating, not only for the subject matter of the case (ownership of a Civil war battle flag), but also an odd new spin on Rule 2 and its requirement of "manifest injustice" -- specifically, whether or not there were oral arguments in the case: "On our own initiative, and to prevent a 'manifest injustice' to Respondent, we vary the requirements of Rule 12(a) in this case. N.C. R. App. P. 2. Neither party requested oral argument, but this Court ordered the parties to travel to Raleigh and appear before us. Respondent's compliance with the Rules was not raised at oral argument. Thus, it would be a 'manifest injustice' to Respondent to impose any sanction for his failure to comply with Rule 12(a). We deem the record on appeal timely filed and reach the merits of Respondent's appeal from the grant of summary judgment."
1 Comments:
A new twist on Rule 2?
Among today's cases, the CoA's unpublished opinion in NC Atty Gen. Roy Cooper v. McAden (COA07-165) was fascinating, not only for the subject matter of the case (ownership of a Civil war battle flag), but also an odd new spin on Rule 2 and its requirement of "manifest injustice" -- specifically, whether or not there were oral arguments in the case:
"On our own initiative, and to prevent a 'manifest injustice' to Respondent, we vary the requirements of Rule 12(a) in this case. N.C. R. App. P. 2. Neither party requested oral argument, but this Court ordered the parties to travel to Raleigh and appear before us. Respondent's compliance with the Rules was not raised at oral argument. Thus, it would be a 'manifest injustice' to Respondent to impose any sanction for his failure to comply with Rule 12(a). We deem the record on appeal timely filed and reach the merits of Respondent's appeal from the grant of summary judgment."
Post a Comment
<< Home