# Rowell v. Bowling

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · July 7, 2009 · 197 N.C. App. 691

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587170

## Case

- **Full name:** SECHIA ROWELL, Plaintiff v. JACK BOWLING, JR., M.D. AND NEW HANOVER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 7, 2009
- **Citations:** 197 N.C. App. 691; 678 S.E.2d 748; 2009 N.C. App. LEXIS 1089
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Jackson
- **Judges:** Hunter, Robert, Wynn, Jackson
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587170

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable where the plaintiff specifically alleged that a particular incision made by the defendant doctor to the plaintiff’s left knee was the exact cause of her injury
- stating a trial court’s review of a Rule 9(j) motion is a question of law, and the Court is not to inquire into the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff

## Opinion text

JACKSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to invoke Rule 2 to reach the merits of plaintiff’s appeal. For the reasons stated below, I would dismiss.
Rule 28 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant to include in the body of his argument “citations of the authorities upon which the appellant relies.” N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2007). “The function of all briefs ... is to define clearly the questions presented to the reviewing court and to present the arguments and authorities upon which the parties rely in support of their respective positions thereon. Review is limited to questions so presented in the several briefs.” N.C. R. App. P. 28(a) (2007). “Assignments of error ... in support of which no . . . authority [is] cited, will be taken as abandoned.” N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2007).
Plaintiff devotes a single page to her sole argument on appeal. That argument is devoid of any supporting legal authority whatsoever. Therefore, as noted in the majority opinion, plaintiff’s argument is subject to dismissal. However, rather than dismissing the argument, the majority addresses it under the auspices of Rule 2.
Pursuant to Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appellate courts may excuse a party’s appellate rules violations when necessary to “prevent manifest injustice to a party” or to “expedite decision in the public interest.” N.C. R. App. P. 2 (2007). However, Rule 2 is to be invoked “cautiously.” Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co., LLC v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 196 , 657 S.E.2d 361, 364 (2008). In Dogwood, our Supreme Court reaffirmed “prior cases as to the ‘exceptional circumstances’ which allow the appellate coqrts to take this ‘extraordinary step.’ Id. (citing State v. Hart, 361 N.C. 309, 315-17 , 644 S.E.2d 201, 205-06 (2007); Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 66 , 511 S.E.2d 298, 299-300 (1999)).
*699 I do not believe this case presents an “exceptional circumstance” warranting the “extraordinary step” of invoking Rule 2. No “manifest injustice to a party” will be prevented by invoking Rule 2; no “decision in the public interest” will be expedited. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9587170. Public record. Not legal advice.