Opinion

Moore v. Strickland

  • 23 N.C. App. 732
  • 209 S.E.2d 830
  • 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2204
Court
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Filed
Nov 20, 1974
Status
Published
Author
Morris
On the bench
Morris, Hedrick, Baley
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 68.0%

The opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

The appellant in his record on appeal undertakes to set out 20 assginments of error based on a like number of exceptions, without making any attempt to group his assignments of error. The exceptions appear nowhere in the record except in the purported assignments of error. Such exceptions are completely ineffectual and will not be considered on appeal. Rule' 21, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals.

State v. Hewett,

270 N.C. 348 , 154 S.E. 2d 476 (1967) ;

Dilday v. Board of Education,

267 N.C. 438 , 148 S.E. 2d 513 (1966) ;

Bunn v. Bunn,

262 N.C. 67 , 136 S.E. 2d 240 (1964) ;

In re Register,

5 N.C. App. 29 , 167 S.E. 2d 802 (1969) ;

Midgett v. Midgett,

5 N.C. App. 74 , 168 S.E. 2d 53 (1969). However, in the absence of exceptions, or when exceptions have not been properly preserved in accordance with our Rules of Practice, the appeal will be taken as an exception to the judgment.

Holden v. Holden,

245 N.C. 1 , 95 S.E. 2d 118 (1956). We are, therefore, limited to the question whether error appears on the face of the record.

We find no error appearing on the face of the record. Indeed, our review of the entire record reveals no error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Baley concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.