From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Viar v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Apr 1, 2005
359 N.C. 400 (N.C. 2005)

Summary

holding that the rules of appellate procedure are mandatory

Summary of this case from State v. Lowe

Opinion

No. 109A04

Filed 7 April 2005

Appeal and Error — failure to comply with Appellate Procedure Rules — dismissal of appeal

The Court of Appeals should have dismissed plaintiff's appeal in an action under the Tort Claims Act for failure to comply with Rules 10 and 28(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The majority opinion in the Court of Appeals erred by applying Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend the Rules and address the issue, not raised or argued by plaintiff, which was the basis of the Industrial Commission's decision.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 162 N.C. App. 362, 590 S.E.2d 909 (2004), reversing and remanding a decision and order entered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission on 20 August 2002. Heard in the Supreme Court 6 December 2004.

DeVore, Acton Stafford, P.A., by Fred W. DeVore, III, for plaintiffs-appellees. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by William H. Borden, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert T. Hargett, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Ann Reed, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for the defendant-appellant.


On appeal to this Court, defendant contends that plaintiff's appeal should be dismissed in accordance with Judge Tyson's dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals for violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. We agree.

The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and "failure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal." Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 65, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1999). In the instant case, plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 10 and Rule 28(b). With respect to assignments of error, Rule 10(c) provides the following:

(1) Form; Record References. A listing of the assignments of error upon which an appeal is predicated shall be stated at the conclusion of the record on appeal in short form without argument, and shall be separately numbered. Each assignment of error shall so far as practicable, be confined to a single issue of law; and shall state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned. An assignment of error is sufficient if it directs the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made, with clear and specific record or transcript references. Questions made as to several issues or findings relating to one ground of recovery or defense may be combined in one assignment of error, if separate record or transcript references are made.

N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1). In this case, plaintiff presented two assignments of error, neither of which was numbered or made specific record references. Moreover, the second stated assignment of error did not "state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error [was] assigned."

With respect to an appellant's brief, Rule 28(b) requires the following:

(6) An argument, to contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to each question presented. Each question shall be separately stated. Immediately following each question shall be a reference to the assignments of error pertinent to the question, identified by their numbers and by the pages at which they appear in the printed record on appeal. Assignments of error not set out in the appellant's brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.

N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6). Plaintiff made no argument as to the first stated assignment of error in his brief to the Court of Appeals. Thus, this assignment of error is deemed abandoned under Rule 28(b)(6). Nevertheless, plaintiff's brief in the Court of Appeals refers to assignment of error one and then to the pages of the record containing the dissenting opinion in the Industrial Commission. Moreover, plaintiff's second stated assignment of error purports to challenge the Industrial Commission's conclusion of law, but the arguments in plaintiff's brief in the Court of Appeals do not address the issue upon which the Industrial Commission's conclusion of law was based.

The majority opinion in the Court of Appeals, recognizing the flawed content of plaintiff's appeal, applied Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend the Rules. The majority opinion then addressed the issue, not raised or argued by plaintiff, which was the basis of the Industrial Commission's decision, namely, the reasonableness of defendant's decision to delay installation of the median barriers. The Court of Appeals majority asserted that plaintiff's Rules violations did not impede comprehension of the issues on appeal or frustrate the appellate process. Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 162 N.C. App. 362, 375, 590 S.E.2d 909, 919 (2004). It is not the role of the appellate courts, however, to create an appeal for an appellant. As this case illustrates, the Rules of Appellate Procedure must be consistently applied; otherwise, the Rules become meaningless, and an appellee is left without notice of the basis upon which an appellate court might rule. See Bradshaw v. Stansberry, 164 N.C. 284, 164 N.C. 356, 79 S.E. 302 (1913).

For the reasons stated herein and in that portion of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals addressing plaintiff's violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, plaintiff's appeal should have been dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated and plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Viar v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Apr 1, 2005
359 N.C. 400 (N.C. 2005)

holding that the rules of appellate procedure are mandatory

Summary of this case from State v. Lowe

holding that violation of the appellate rules subjects an appeal to dismissal

Summary of this case from State v. Oxendine

holding that appeal should be dismissed in part because the arguments in appellant's brief did not match the substance of the assignments of error

Summary of this case from In re L.A.B

holding that the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory

Summary of this case from Rooker v. Food Lion

holding that the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory

Summary of this case from Walker v. Dept. of Transp

adopting dissenting opinion of Tyson, J., 162 N.C. App. 362, 590 S.E.2d 909

Summary of this case from Surber v. Rockingham Cty. Bd. of Educ

reversing this Court for resolving appeal on ground not raised by appellant because "[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts . . . to create an appeal for an appellant"

Summary of this case from Lovick v. Farris

In Viar, our Supreme Court stated that this Court may not review an appeal that violates the Rules of Appellate Procedure even though such violations neither impede our comprehension of the issues nor frustrate the appellate process.

Summary of this case from State v. Hart

In Viar, we neither admonished the Court of Appeals to avoid applying Rule 2, nor did we state that the court may not review an appeal that violates the Rules, even when rules violations “d[o] not impede comprehension of the issues on appeal or frustrate the appellate process."

Summary of this case from State v. Hart

discouraging review on the merits when doing so would leave the appellee "without notice of the basis upon which appellate court might rule"

Summary of this case from Cunningham v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

dismissing an appeal because the plaintiff failed to present an argument in support of a presented issue in violation of Rule 28(b)

Summary of this case from Fairley v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.

dismissing appeal where the arguments in appellant's brief did not address the issue upon which the trial court's ruling was based

Summary of this case from Pittsboro Matters, Inc. v. Town of Pittsboro

stating that “[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for the appellant”

Summary of this case from State v. Roberts

stating that “[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts, ... to create an appeal for an appellant”

Summary of this case from State v. Earls

stating that “[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant”

Summary of this case from State v. Barnes

admonishing this Court for resolving appeal on ground not raised by appellant because “[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant”

Summary of this case from Banking v. Peacock Farm, Inc.

stating that “[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant.”

Summary of this case from Barker v. Barker

stating that “[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant”

Summary of this case from State v. Leach

stating that “[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts, however, to create an appeal for an appellant.”

Summary of this case from Farley v. Farley

stating that "[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts . . . to create an appeal for an appellant"

Summary of this case from State v. Manson

stating that “[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant”

Summary of this case from State v. Richardson

stating that “[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for the appellant”

Summary of this case from Eubank v. Van–Riel

stating that “[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant”

Summary of this case from The Charlotte–mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. Talford

noting that it is problematic to hear an appeal on issues not directly presented before the Court as it leaves an appellee "without notice of the basis upon which an appellate court might rule."

Summary of this case from Lawrence v. Sullivan

In Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005), the Supreme Court articulated that “[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts... to create an appeal for an appellant."

Summary of this case from Person Earth Movers v. Thomas
Case details for

Viar v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

Case Details

Full title:CLAUDE M. VIAR, JR., Co-Administrator of the Estate of MEGAN RAE VIAR…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Apr 1, 2005

Citations

359 N.C. 400 (N.C. 2005)
610 S.E.2d 360

Citing Cases

Dogwood Dev. v. White Oak Transp

Defendant failed to respond to plaintiff's motion or to correct the violations plaintiff identified. “The…

McKinley Bldg. Corp. v. Alvis

          “The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and ‘failure to follow these rules…