{
  "id": 11650847,
  "name": "LETITIA A. ROGERS, Plaintiff v. DAVID E. COLPITTS, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogers v. Colpitts",
  "decision_date": "1998-05-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA97-900",
  "first_page": "421",
  "last_page": "423",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 N.C. App. 421"
    }
  ],
  "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": "397 S.E.2d 219",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 N.C. 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2494370,
        2496377,
        2498236,
        2497086,
        2497439
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/327/0483-05",
        "/nc/327/0483-04",
        "/nc/327/0483-02",
        "/nc/327/0483-01",
        "/nc/327/0483-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "392 S.E.2d 425",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "430"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N.C. App. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520925
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "48"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/99/0042-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "496 S.E.2d 385",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 N.C. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        551173,
        551144,
        551281,
        551287,
        551128
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/347/0400-02",
        "/nc/347/0400-05",
        "/nc/347/0400-03",
        "/nc/347/0400-01",
        "/nc/347/0400-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "493 S.E.2d 458",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 N.C. 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        551297,
        551202,
        551306,
        551118,
        551282
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/347/0268-05",
        "/nc/347/0268-01",
        "/nc/347/0268-04",
        "/nc/347/0268-02",
        "/nc/347/0268-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "488 S.E.2d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "293"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 N.C. App. 102",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11792467
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "109"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/127/0102-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 S.E.2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "437"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N.C. App. 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526878
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "335"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/92/0331-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 3544,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.773,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.878546381797874e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8433694396854797
    },
    "sha256": "041753c051956af8be1009e78684972928457078b947358585cd8ed313157cb9",
    "simhash": "1:83d86b207ca0f427",
    "word_count": 582
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:06.814789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges LEWIS and HORTON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LETITIA A. ROGERS, Plaintiff v. DAVID E. COLPITTS, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nDavid E. Colpitts (Defendant) appeals from the trial court\u2019s 17 March 1997 order and judgment ordering specific performance of portions of the parties\u2019 separation agreement.\nIn the record on appeal, Defendant\u2019s sole assignment of error states: \u201c[Defendant] assigns as error the following: 1. The Court\u2019s \u2018Order\u2019 No. 8(a). Record, page 46.\u201d\nThe dispositive issue is whether Defendant has abandoned his appeal by failing to specify the legal basis on which he assigns error.\nThe scope of review on appeal \u201cis confined to a consideration of those assignments of error set out in the record on appeal in accordance with this Rule 10.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 10(a). Rule 10 requires that \u201c[e]ach assignment of error shall... state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1). One purpose of Rule 10 is to \u201cidentify for the appellee\u2019s benefit all the errors possibly to be urged on appeal... so that the appellee may properly assess the sufficiency of the proposed record on appeal to protect his position.\u201d Kimmel v. Brett, 92 N.C. App. 331, 335, 374 S.E.2d 435, 437 (1988). In addition, Rule 10 allows our appellate courts to \u201cfairly and expeditiously\u201d review the assignments of error without making a \u201cvoyage of discovery\u201d through the record in order to determine the legal questions involved. Id. The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure contain an appendix listing examples to aid the appellant in properly presenting assignments of error on appeal. Some examples listed therein include:\nC. Examples related to civil non-jury trial\nDefendant assigns as error:\n2. The court\u2019s Finding of Fact No. 10, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support it.\nRecord, p. 25.\n3. The court\u2019s Conclusion of Law No. 3, on the ground that there are findings of fact which support the conclusion that defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the collision alleged.\nRecord, p. 27.\nN.C.R. App. R, app. C, tbl. 4 (emphasis added).\nIn this case, although Defendant\u2019s sole assignment of error states Defendant\u2019s dissatisfaction with paragraph 8(a) of the trial court\u2019s order, it fails to state the legal basis on which this error is assigned. Defendant\u2019s assignment of error is therefore insufficient under Rule 10. Because our scope of review is confined to properly presented assignments of error, Defendant\u2019s appeal is dismissed. See, e.g., Maynor v. Onslow County, 127 N.C. App. 102, 109, 488 S.E.2d 289, 293, appeal dismissed, 347 N.C. 268, 493 S.E.2d 458, and cert. denied, 347 N.C. 400, 496 S.E.2d 385 (1997); Industrial Innovators, Inc. v. Myrick-White, Inc., 99 N.C. App. 42, 48, 392 S.E.2d 425, 430, disc. review denied, 327 N.C. 483, 397 S.E.2d 219 (1990).\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges LEWIS and HORTON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Epting & Hackney, by Joe Hackney, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "John G. McCormick, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LETITIA A. ROGERS, Plaintiff v. DAVID E. COLPITTS, Defendant\nNo. COA97-900\n(Filed 5 May 1998)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 341 (NCI4th)\u2014 assignment of error\u2014 insufficient \u2014 appeal dismissed\nAn appeal was dismissed where the sole assignment of error was \u201c[Defendant] assigns as error the following: (1) The Court\u2019s Order\u2019 No. 8(a). Record, page 46.\u201d That assignment of error failed to state the legal basis on which error was assigned and was insufficient under N.C.R. App. R 10.\nAppeal by Defendant from order and judgment filed 17 March 1997 by Judge Charles T.L. Anderson in Orange County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 April 1998.\nEpting & Hackney, by Joe Hackney, for plaintiff appellee.\nJohn G. McCormick, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0421-01",
  "first_page_order": 461,
  "last_page_order": 463
}