{
  "id": 8525352,
  "name": "JOHNNY RAY BUSTLE, JR. and wife, CHERYL M. BUSTLE, Plaintiffs v. JAMES S. RICE, and wife, ANITA S. RICE, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bustle v. Rice",
  "decision_date": "1994-10-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 9427DC1",
  "first_page": "658",
  "last_page": "660",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 658"
    }
  ],
  "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": "258 S.E.2d 357",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569817
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S.E. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1930,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N.C. 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615941
      ],
      "year": 1930,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0788-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 S.E.2d 393",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561451
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0258-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "404 S.E.2d 179",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N.C. App. 31",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519379
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/103/0031-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "423 S.E.2d 75",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 N.C. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2503217
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/332/0544-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 S.E.2d 270",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.C. App. 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527697
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/76/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "365 S.E.2d 686",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521823
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/89/0323-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 S.E.2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N.C. App. 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526878
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/92/0331-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 4399,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.753,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.208964909477019e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9405405488891437
    },
    "sha256": "316dcb1e7e909a222abae6834dce07149c9dca1f46a4ca81d6ee3f5053ce52a5",
    "simhash": "1:c7ecce80736a3810",
    "word_count": 727
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:55.005039+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge ARNOLD, Judges MARTIN and THOMPSON"
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOHNNY RAY BUSTLE, JR. and wife, CHERYL M. BUSTLE, Plaintiffs v. JAMES S. RICE, and wife, ANITA S. RICE, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM\nPlaintiffs appeal from a judgment, entered after a non-jury trial, denying their claim for damages for alleged breach of a contract to purchase real property and for tortious \u201cmisappropriation\u201d of certain monies. Plaintiffs assignments of error appear in the record as follows:\nASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR\nThat the Court entered the Order based on total misinterpretation of the contract between the parties and the prevailing laws of the State of North Carolina for the following reasons:\n1. That the Court totally ignored monies received by the defendants which have not been accounted for to the plaintiff.\n2. That the Court totally ignored the conversion of funds by the defendant, in violation of Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes.\n3. That the findings of fact do not support the entering of the judgment in the aforesaid order.\nThese purported assignments of error violate the provisions of N.C.R. App. P. Rule 10(c)(1) in several respects: specifically, they are not stated \u201cwithout argumentation\u201d; they do not specify the \u201clegal basis upon which error is assigned\u201d; and they do not \u201cdirect the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made, with clear and specific transcript references.\u201d See Kimmel v. Brett, 92 N.C. App. 331, 374 S.E.2d 435 (1988); Pamlico Properties IV v. SEG Anstaldt Co., 89 N.C. App. 323, 365 S.E.2d 686 (1988); McManus v. McManus, 76 N.C. App. 588, 334 S.E.2d 270 (1985).\nIn addition, the issue presented by plaintiffs\u2019 brief, \u201cDid the trial Court [sic] commit Error [sic] by finding that the plaintiffs\u2019 exclusive remedies for the defendants\u2019 breach of contract was liquidated damages?\u201d, does not correspond to any assignment of error set forth in the record on appeal. The scope of appellate review is limited to the issues presented by assignments of error set out in the record on appeal; where the issue presented in the appellant\u2019s brief does not correspond to a proper assignment of error, the matter is not properly considered by the appellate court. State v. Thomas, 332 N.C. 544, 423 S.E.2d 75 (1992).\nFinally, appellants\u2019 brief does not comply with N.C.R. App. Rule 28(b)(5) which requires that \u201c[i]mmediately 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\u2019s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.\u201d Appellants\u2019 violations of the foregoing rules in this case renders it virtually impossible for us to discern to which assignment of error appellants direct their argument; accordingly, we decline to address the merits of the argument. Hines v. Arnold, 103 N.C. App. 31, 404 S.E.2d 179 (1991).\nAn appellate court will not review matters not properly before it. State v. Fennell, 307 N.C. 258, 297 S.E.2d 393 (1982). The Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory; it is the duty of an appellate court to enforce them uniformly. Id.; Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126 (1930). A failure to follow the Appellate Rules subjects an appeal to dismissal. Craver v. Craver, 298 N.C. 231, 258 S.E.2d 357 (1979); N.C.R. App. Rules 25(b), 34(b)(1). Accordingly, plaintiffs\u2019 appeal is dismissed.\nDismissed.\nPanel consisting of:\"\nChief Judge ARNOLD, Judges MARTIN and THOMPSON",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. A. Horn for plaintiff-appellants.",
      "Bridges & Gilbert, P.A., by R. L. Gilbert, for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHNNY RAY BUSTLE, JR. and wife, CHERYL M. BUSTLE, Plaintiffs v. JAMES S. RICE, and wife, ANITA S. RICE, Defendants\nNo. 9427DC1\n(Filed 18 October 1994)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 7 (NCI4th)\u2014 failure to comply with appellate rules \u2014 appeal dismissed\nPlaintiffs\u2019 appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that assignments of error be stated without argumentation, specify the legal basis upon which error is assigned, and direct the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made with clear and specific transcript references. N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1), 28(b)(5).\nAm Jur 2d, Appeal and Error \u00a7 290.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from order entered 25 August 1993 by Judge J. Keaton Fonvielle in Cleveland County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 September 1994.\nG. A. Horn for plaintiff-appellants.\nBridges & Gilbert, P.A., by R. L. Gilbert, for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0658-01",
  "first_page_order": 688,
  "last_page_order": 690
}