{ "id": 8524076, "name": "GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner v. CAROLINA TRUCK & BODY COMPANY, INC., Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "General Motors Corp. v. Carolina Truck & Body Co.", "decision_date": "1991-03-19", "docket_number": "No. 9010SC692", "first_page": "349", "last_page": "350", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "102 N.C. App. 349" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-305", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "402 S.E.2d 135", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "102 N.C. App. 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523300 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/102/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 S.E.2d 374", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 N.C. App. 150", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12169685 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/85/0150-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-305", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(6)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 225, "char_count": 3242, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08, "percentile": 0.34025072504227083 }, "sha256": "39b1c7c576421eb9f181adbd3b9268034ae0a29dba2c8d154380abe28435e4b8", "simhash": "1:ab405c71d01ca6bc", "word_count": 520 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:04.252791+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge ORR concur." ], "parties": [ "GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner v. CAROLINA TRUCK & BODY COMPANY, INC., Respondent" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nThe decision of the Motor Vehicles Commissioner on the termination of a franchise is reviewable pursuant to Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-305(6). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-43 provides that \u201cany person who is aggrieved\u201d may petition for judicial review of a final agency decision. A \u201cperson aggrieved\u201d is any person or group of persons whose rights have been adversely affected. Matter of Wheeler, 85 N.C. App. 150, 354 S.E.2d 374 (1987).\nWe can think of no way in which petitioner\u2019s rights were adversely affected by the agency decision. It won its case. We have considered petitioner\u2019s claim that it was attempting to preserve a cross-assignment of error but note that the Commissioner\u2019s decision in petitioner\u2019s favor was upheld both in the trial court and by this Court. Petitioner is not a party aggrieved. This appeal is therefore\nDismissed.\nChief Judge HEDRICK and Judge ORR concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Poyner & Spruill, by Cecil W. Harrison, Jr. and Laura Broughton Russell, for petitioner-appellant.", "Roberts Stevens & Cogburn, P. A., by Frank P. Graham and W. O. Brazil, III, for respondent-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner v. CAROLINA TRUCK & BODY COMPANY, INC., Respondent\nNo. 9010SC692\n(Filed 19 March 1991)\nAdministrative Law \u00a7 55 (NCI4th)\u2014 case won by petitioner\u2014 petitioner not aggrieved party \u2014 appeal dismissed\nPetitioner was not an aggrieved party and its appeal is therefore dismissed where it sought a review of the ruling by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles that the Heavy Duty Truck Addendum to the sales and service agreement between the parties constituted a franchise; the trial court concluded that the termination of the addendum amounted to the termination of a franchise; and petitioner\u2019s rights were in no way adversely affected.\nAm Jur 2d, Appeal and Error \u00a7\u00a7 179, 184.\nAPPEAL by petitioner from judgment entered 29 March 1990 in WAKE County Superior Court by Judge F. Gordon Battle. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 January 1991.\nThis is a companion case to Carolina Truck & Body Company, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation, 102 N.C. App. 262, 402 S.E.2d 135 (1991), also filed this day. We will summarize only those facts necessary to resolve petitioner\u2019s appeal.\nRespondent filed an action before the North Carolina Commissioner of Motor Vehicles alleging that petitioner \u201cwrongfully and unfairly\u201d terminated its heavy duty truck franchise in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-305. The Commissioner ruled in petitioner\u2019s favor by order dated 20 March 1989, concluding that petitioner\u2019s actions were undertaken with good cause and in good faith. Respondent appealed these conclusions to Buncombe County Superior Court on 20 April 1989. Petitioner had filed a separate appeal in Wake County Superior Court on 19 April 1989, praying for a limited review of the findings of fact and the conclusion of law stating that the Heavy Duty Truck addendum to the sales and service agreement between the parties constituted a franchise.\nEach petition for review was heard in the county in which it was filed. The trial court in this action reviewed the record and denied petitioner\u2019s appeal, concluding that the termination of the addendum amounted to the termination of a franchise.\nPoyner & Spruill, by Cecil W. Harrison, Jr. and Laura Broughton Russell, for petitioner-appellant.\nRoberts Stevens & Cogburn, P. A., by Frank P. Graham and W. O. Brazil, III, for respondent-appellee." }, "file_name": "0349-01", "first_page_order": 379, "last_page_order": 380 }