{
  "id": 11202571,
  "name": "DUKE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff v. KEITH A. BISHOP and LORRAINE L. LONDON, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Duke University v. Bishop",
  "decision_date": "1998-12-01",
  "docket_number": "No. COA98-131",
  "first_page": "545",
  "last_page": "548",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "131 N.C. App. 545"
    }
  ],
  "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": "468 S.E.2d 269",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 143",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11916022
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/122/0143-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "468 S.E.2d 856",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "858"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 265",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11916694
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "268"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/122/0265-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 S.E.2d 631",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "644"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562282
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "341"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0321-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "480 S.E.2d 706",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "707"
        },
        {
          "page": "707"
        },
        {
          "page": "708"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N.C. App. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11867086
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "286"
        },
        {
          "page": "287"
        },
        {
          "page": "287"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/125/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 S.E.2d 357",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "361",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569817
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "236",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561615
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "424",
          "parenthetical": "\"[0]nly those who properly appeal from the judgment of the trial divisions can get relief in the appellate divisions. This can be a strict requirement.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0410-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 408,
    "char_count": 6138,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.734,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.994873952441866e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5385136353509413
    },
    "sha256": "f86929d7c3ac197b813b21570fb61c2388a05f4cb584ef7cadbadc6c3064e2a8",
    "simhash": "1:b3706649e8ec2a03",
    "word_count": 1022
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:28.584435+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GREENE and WALKER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DUKE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff v. KEITH A. BISHOP and LORRAINE L. LONDON, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "SMITH, Judge.\nDefendants appeal from various orders and judgments entered during the civil suit filed by plaintiff Duke University. We do not reach the merits of defendants\u2019 arguments, however, because of defendants\u2019 disregard for the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because of the seriousness and abundance of rule violations, we dismiss this appeal.\nTo obtain review of lower court decisions, appellants must adhere to certain mandatory procedural requirements. See In re Lancaster, 290 N.C. 410, 424, 226 S.E.2d371, 380 (1976) (\u201c[0]nly those who properly appeal from the judgment of the trial divisions can get relief in the appellate divisions. This can be a strict requirement.\u201d). This Court has stated, \u201c[t]he Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory. They are designed to keep the process of perfecting an appeal flowing in an orderly manner.\u201d Craver v. Craver, 298 N.C. 231, 236, 258 S.E.2d 357, 361 (1979) (citation omitted).\nOur rules require appellants to present complete records, which are in final and proper form. See N.C.R. App. P. 9(a)(1)(e), (j) (1997). Appellants\u2019 first omission occurs in the record on appeal. Rule 10(c)(1) states unequivocally that \u201c[a] listing of the assignments of error upon which an appeal is predicated shall be stated at the conclusion of the record on appeal.\u201d Thus, \u201cassignments of error are now mandatory to perfect an appeal.\u201d Shook v. County of Buncombe, 125 N.C. App. 284, 286, 480 S.E.2d 706, 707 (1997). Although the index to the record on appeal provides that a listing of assignments of error is present, a thorough search of the record reveals no such list. Whether the omission be intentional or inadvertent, it is appellants\u2019 responsibility to ensure that the record is in its complete and proper form. See State v. Alston, 307 N.C. 321, 341, 298 S.E.2d 631, 644 (1983).\nOne of the most egregious of appellants\u2019 violations occurred when they directly violated the Order Settling Record on Appeal. In this order, the trial judge stated that certain documents, specifically two Memoranda of Law and a letter from defendants to Judge Richard G. Chaney, \u201cshould not be included in the Record on Appeal.\u201d In an apparent attempt to circumvent the court order, appellants included these documents as an appendix to their brief. This Court has held, \u201cit [is] improper [for a party]... to attach a document not in the record and not permitted under N.C.R. App. P. 28(d) in an appendix to its brief.\u201d Horton v. New South Ins. Co., 122 N.C. App. 265, 268, 468 S.E.2d 856, 858 (1996); see N.C.R. App. P. 9(a) (stating that review is limited to the record and transcript); N.C.R. App. P. 28(b) (describing proper contents of appellant\u2019s brief). Inclusion of this material violated not only the court order but also Rule 28(d).\nDefendants\u2019 brief also violates other appellate rules. Rule 28(c) enumerates the items that must be included in appellant\u2019s brief.\nAn appellant\u2019s brief in any appeal shall contain ... in the following order:\n(1) A cover page, followed by a table of contents and table of authorities required by Rule 26(g).\n(2) A statement of the questions presented for review.\n(3) A concise statement of the procedural history of the case. This shall indicate the nature of the case and summarize the course of proceedings up to the taking of the appeal before the court.\n(4) A full and complete statement of the facts. . ..\n(5) An argument, to contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to each question presented. Each question shall be separately stated. Immediately 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.\nN.C.R. App. R 10(c)(l)-(5). Appellants failed to include a statement of the questions presented for review, thus violating subsection (c)(2), and they failed to include a statement of the procedural history of the case, thus violating subsection (c)(3). Furthermore, they violated subsection (c)(5) by failing to include, after each question for review, a \u201creference 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.\u201d See Shook, 125 N.C. App. at 287, 480 S.E.2d at 707.\nFinally, we note that appellants also failed to comply with Rule 26(g) in that the point type and spacing used was incorrect. See Lewis v. Craven Regional Medical Center, 122 N.C. App. 143, 468 S.E.2d 269 (1996). Additionally, the page numbers were improperly formatted and positioned. See N.C.R. App. R 26(g) (stating \u201c[t]he format of all papers presented for filing shall follow the instructions found in the appendixes to these Appellate Rules\u201d); N.C.R. App. P. Appx. B (stating \u201cpages are sequentially numbered by arabic numbers, flanked by dashes, at the center of the top margin of the page, e.g., -4-\u201d).\nBecause of appellants\u2019 numerous flagrant violations of our rules, and because \u201c[o]ur rules are mandatory, and in fairness to all who come before this Court, they must be enforced uniformly,\u201d Shook, 125 N.C. App. at 287, 480 S.E.2d at 708, defendants\u2019 appeal is dismissed.\nAppeal Dismissed.\nJudges GREENE and WALKER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SMITH, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, by Edward L. Embree, III, and Julie A. King, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Keith A. Bishop for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DUKE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff v. KEITH A. BISHOP and LORRAINE L. LONDON, Defendants\nNo. COA98-131\n(Filed 1 December 1998)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appellate rules \u2014 numerous violations\u2014 dismissal\nAn appeal was dismissed for serious and abundant violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.\nAppeal by defendants from entry of default against defendant London entered 16 January 1997 by Bonnie J. Swanson, Assistant Clerk of Superior Court for Durham County, and judgment entered 15 August 1997 by Judge Lowry M. Betts in Durham County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 October 1998.\nMoore & Van Allen, PLLC, by Edward L. Embree, III, and Julie A. King, for plaintiff-appellee.\nKeith A. Bishop for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0545-01",
  "first_page_order": 579,
  "last_page_order": 582
}