{ "id": 9006617, "name": "CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Plaintiff v. HARRY DORSEY d/b/a Carolina Communications, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. Dorsey", "decision_date": "2005-06-07", "docket_number": "No. COA04-1182", "first_page": "684", "last_page": "688", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "170 N.C. App. 684" } ], "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": "79 S.E. 302", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N.C. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657757 ], "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/164/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "361", "parenthetical": "citing Bradshaw v. Stansberry, 164 N.C. 356, 79 S.E. 302 (1913)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3799435 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402", "parenthetical": "citing Bradshaw v. Stansberry, 164 N.C. 356, 79 S.E. 302 (1913)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "436 S.E.2d 282", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "283" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N.C. App. 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523231 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "632" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/112/0630-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 L. Ed. 2d 320", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 S.Ct. 442", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "540 U.S. 971", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8979328, 8979302, 8979133, 8979015, 8979081, 8979056, 8979282, 8979188, 8979252, 8979225, 8979162, 8979100, 8979037 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/540/0971-13", "/us/540/0971-12", "/us/540/0971-06", "/us/540/0971-01", "/us/540/0971-04", "/us/540/0971-03", "/us/540/0971-11", "/us/540/0971-08", "/us/540/0971-10", "/us/540/0971-09", "/us/540/0971-07", "/us/540/0971-05", "/us/540/0971-02" ] }, { "cite": "588 S.E.2d 344", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "355" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491533 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "85" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0068-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S.E.2d 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "260 N.C. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573838 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/260/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "511 S.E.2d 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299", "parenthetical": "citing Jim Walter v. Gilliam, 260 N.C. 211, 132 S.E.2d 313 (1963)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 131998 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65", "parenthetical": "citing Jim Walter v. Gilliam, 260 N.C. 211, 132 S.E.2d 313 (1963)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "361" }, { "page": "361" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3799435 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402" }, { "page": "402" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0400-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 467, "char_count": 8182, "ocr_confidence": 0.731, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0531089942627975e-07, "percentile": 0.5544460314095532 }, "sha256": "71093e853a92c17887b785bbfdcbb6d4e0f21386de1b4cfec0bcc3683137c44d", "simhash": "1:0e7947cfea5b3acb", "word_count": 1327 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:44:47.676310+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge WYNN concurs in result in a separate opinion.", "Judge BRYANT concurs." ], "parties": [ "CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Plaintiff v. HARRY DORSEY d/b/a Carolina Communications, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JACKSON, Judge.\nConsolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. (\u201cplaintiff\u2019) is a supplier of electrical equipment, materials, and supplies. On 5 November 1997, plaintiff entered into a written contract with Harry Dorsey (\u201cdefendant\u201d), owner of Carolina Communications and guarantor of an account with plaintiff. The contract allowed plaintiff to maintain an open account for defendant for materials, goods, and supplies. Defendant subsequently failed to pay plaintiff for these materials, goods, and supplies, which totaled thirteen thousand five hundred sixty-two dollars and seventy five cents ($13,562.75). On 24 September 2003, plaintiff sent a written letter to defendant notifying him that the attorney\u2019s fees provisions of the contract would be enforced if payment was not received. Defendant did not pay the amount owed to plaintiff and therefore, on 30 October 2003, plaintiff filed a complaint in Superior Court demanding the money in the amount of $13,562.75, plus interest at a rate of one and a half percent from 25 September 2003 until paid in full, and reasonable attorney\u2019s fees in the amount of $2,034.41. In the alternative, plaintiff sought judgment under a theory of quantum meruit.\nOn 16 January 2004, plaintiff filed a motion with the trial court for summary judgment along with an affidavit by David Shannonhouse, the Credit Manager of plaintiff. The hearing for the motion was set for 17 March 2004. On 13 February 2004, Judge Donald W. Stephens entered an order for a mediated settlement conference and set a tentative trial schedule. The mediation order stated that the mediated settlement conference should be completed by 13 June 2004. On 17 March 2004, the hearing on plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment was heard before Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr. The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff stating that there was no genuine issue of material fact and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff $13,562.75, plus interest at the contract rate of one and a half percent from 2 May 2003 until judgment and thereafter at the legal rate of eight percent until paid in full, plus reasonable attorney\u2019s fees in the amount of $2,034.41. It is from this order defendant appeals.\nDefendant contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant further contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment prior to the parties scheduling their claim for mediation.\nIn the instant case, defendant has failed to comply with the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, therefore, we decline to reach the merits of this case. The \u201cfailure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal.\u201d Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 65, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1999) (citing Jim Walter v. Gilliam, 260 N.C. 211, 132 S.E.2d 313 (1963)).\nRule 28(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that it is the \u201cfunction of all briefs required or permitted by these rules ... 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.\u201d N.C. R. App. P. 28(a) (2005). It is further required by our rules of appellate procedure that:\nImmediately 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. The body of the argument shall contain citations of the authorities upon which the appellant relies.\nN.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2003). Here, defendant violated Rule 28 when he failed to separate each question presented within the argument section of his brief and failed to reference each assignment of error with numbers and pages where they appear in the record on appeal. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6).\nDefendant further failed to support his arguments with \u201cstated or cited authority.\u201d N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6). While we recognize defendant made one reference to a statute and quoted once a statute pertaining to bonds, we do not find this sufficient citation to authority. A party\u2019s assignment of error is deemed abandoned in the absence of citation to supporting authority. State v. Walters, 357 N.C. 68, 85, 588 S.E.2d 344, 355 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 971, 124 S.Ct. 442, 157 L. Ed. 2d 320 (2003).\nDefendant also failed to provide a \u201cfull and complete statement of the facts.\u201d N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(5). This section of his brief \u201cshould [have combined] a non-argumentative summary of all material facts underlying the matter in controversy which [were] necessary to understand all questions presented for review, supported by references to pages in the transcript of proceedings, the record on appeal, or exhibits.\u201d Id. Defendant\u2019s statement of the facts were intertwined with the statement of the case and the argument section. This was insufficient and in violation of Rule 28(b)(5). Northwoods Homeowners Assn, Inc. v. Town of Chapel Hill, 112 N.C. App. 630, 632, 436 S.E.2d 282, 283 (1993).\nFinally, defendant violated Rule 10(c)(1) of the North Rules of Appellate Procedure by failing to number each assignment of error separately in the record on appeal. While Rule 10(c)(1) states that \u201c[a]n assignment of error is sufficient if it directs the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made,\u201d the rule also requires that it be made \u201cclear\u201d with \u201cspecific record or transcript references.\u201d N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(1) (2003).\nOur rules of appellate procedure \u201cmust be consistently applied; otherwise, the Rules become meaningless, and an appellee is left without notice of the basis upon which an appellate court might rule.\u201d Viar v. N.C. Dept. of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005) (citing Bradshaw v. Stansberry, 164 N.C. 356, 79 S.E. 302 (1913)). Accordingly, we dismiss.\nDismissed.\nJudge WYNN concurs in result in a separate opinion.\nJudge BRYANT concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "JACKSON, Judge." }, { "text": "WYNN, Judge\nconcurring.\nWhile I concur in the result, I write separately to express my displeasure with this strict application of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to this pro se appellant. However, in Viar v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005), our Supreme Court admonished this Court to avoid applying Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to grant review where the appellant has violated our Rules of Appellate Procedure \u2014 even in instances where a party\u2019s Rules violations neither impede comprehension of the issues on appeal nor frustrate the appellate process. Because this Court must follow the dictates of Viar, I must concur that Defendant\u2019s failure to comply with several Rules of Appellate Procedure mandates the dismissal of this appeal.\n. \u201cIt is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant. . . . [T]he Rules of Appellate Procedure must be consistently applied; otherwise, the Rules become meaningless[.]\u201d Viar, 359 N.C. at 402, 610 S.E.2d at 361.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "WYNN, Judge" } ], "attorneys": [ "Vann & Sheridan, L.L.P., by Nan E. Hannah for plaintiff - appellee.", "Harry Dorsey, pro se, for Harry Dorsey d/b/a Carolina Communications, defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Plaintiff v. HARRY DORSEY d/b/a Carolina Communications, Defendant\nNo. COA04-1182\n(Filed 7 June 2005)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appellate rules violations \u2014 assignments of error \u2014 argument\u2014statement of facts\nAn appeal was dismissed for multiple violations of the appellate rules where the appellant did not separate each question presented within the argument, cited insufficient authority, did not number each assignment of error separately, did not adequately refer to the record with each assignment of error, and intertwined the statement of facts with the statement of the case and the argument.\nJudge Wynn concurring.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 17 March 2004 by-Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 May 2005.\nVann & Sheridan, L.L.P., by Nan E. Hannah for plaintiff - appellee.\nHarry Dorsey, pro se, for Harry Dorsey d/b/a Carolina Communications, defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0684-01", "first_page_order": 714, "last_page_order": 718 }