{ "id": 4160903, "name": "DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff v. WHITE OAK TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC., Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Dogwood Development & Management Co. v. White Oak Transport Co.", "decision_date": "2008-08-19", "docket_number": "No. COA06-1073-2", "first_page": "114", "last_page": "129", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "192 N.C. App. 114" } ], "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": "657 S.E.2d 361", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640450 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/657/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "645 S.E.2d 212", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638459 ], "year": 2007, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/645/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4149183 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/362/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 N.C. App. 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8203633 ], "year": 2007, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/183/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "644 S.E.2d 5", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638415 ], "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/644/0005-01" ] }, { "cite": "632 S.E.2d 563", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636329 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "574" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/632/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "632 S.E.2d 176", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636280, 12636281, 12636282 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/632/0176-01", "/se2d/632/0176-02", "/se2d/632/0176-03" ] }, { "cite": "623 S.E.2d 345", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634612 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "346" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/623/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "660 S.E.2d 600", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640932 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "604", "parenthetical": "\"As a result of counsel's failure to cite any authority at all in violation of Rule 28, we have not considered the merits of three of the assignments of error because that violation of the rules impaired our ability to review the merits of the appeal.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/660/0600-01" ] }, { "cite": "644 S.E.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638295 ], "weight": 8, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "206" }, { "page": "203", "parenthetical": "noting that dismissal may not be appropriate when a party's noncompliance does not \" 'impede comprehension of the issues on appeal or frustrate the appellate process' \" (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "203" }, { "page": "203" }, { "page": "205" }, { "page": "206" }, { "page": "205", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/644/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "657 S.E.2d 361", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640450 ], "weight": 21, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367", "parenthetical": "emphasis supplied" }, { "page": "362" }, { "page": "362" }, { "page": "361" }, { "page": "367", "parenthetical": "emphasis supplied" }, { "page": "362" }, { "page": "365" }, { "page": "363" }, { "page": "367" }, { "page": "366", "parenthetical": "emphasis supplied" }, { "page": "366-67", "parenthetical": "emphasis supplied" }, { "page": "366" }, { "page": "367" }, { "page": "365", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "366", "parenthetical": "\"[0]nly in the most egregious instances of nonjurisdictional default will dismissal of the appeal be appropriate.\"" }, { "page": "367" }, { "page": "367", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "367" }, { "page": "361" }, { "page": "367" }, { "page": "366" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/657/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "645 S.E.2d 212", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638459 ], "weight": 7, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "214" }, { "page": "214" }, { "page": "217" }, { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/645/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "552 S.E.2d 274", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "277", "parenthetical": "\"We have previously determined that the contract between these parties was for repairs; therefore, [N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 25-1-206, -2-201 (1999)] do not apply.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N.C. App. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11359015 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "435", "parenthetical": "\"We have previously determined that the contract between these parties was for repairs; therefore, [N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 25-1-206, -2-201 (1999)] do not apply.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/146/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S.E.2d 618", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "620", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627108 ], "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "607", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 25-1-206", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 6, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "480 S.E.2d 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "663" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 53948 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "483" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "516 S.E.2d 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "860" }, { "page": "861" }, { "page": "860" }, { "page": "860" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132071 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "624" }, { "page": "624" }, { "page": "624" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "544 S.E.2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684901, 684939, 685036, 685017, 685018 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0157-03", "/nc/352/0157-05", "/nc/352/0157-04", "/nc/352/0157-01", "/nc/352/0157-02" ] }, { "cite": "527 S.E.2d 721", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "724", "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotations omitted" }, { "page": "724" }, { "page": "724" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 N.C. App. 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11092943 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "277", "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotations omitted" }, { "page": "277" }, { "page": "277" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/137/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 S.E.2d 333", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337-38", "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "313 N.C. 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4726773 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "368-69", "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/313/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3738145, 3744710, 3742919, 3739892, 3741879, 3747226, 3739037 ], "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0350-02", "/nc/361/0350-07", "/nc/361/0350-01", "/nc/361/0350-06", "/nc/361/0350-03", "/nc/361/0350-05", "/nc/361/0350-04" ] }, { "cite": "178 N.C. App. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8379047 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "602" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/178/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3793098, 3792339, 3789013, 3795127, 3791577, 3795453 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0482-01", "/nc/360/0482-02", "/nc/360/0482-04", "/nc/360/0482-03", "/nc/360/0482-05", "/nc/360/0482-06" ] }, { "cite": "175 N.C. App. 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8352294 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/175/0416-01" ] }, { "cite": "321 S.E.2d 836", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "837" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4752529 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "320" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "511 S.E.2d 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299-300" }, { "page": "317" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 131998 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 N.C. App. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4160211 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "145", "parenthetical": "No. COA07-830" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/191/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 N.C. App. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4158685 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "632", "parenthetical": "\"As a result of counsel's failure to cite any authority at all in violation of Rule 28, we have not considered the merits of three of the assignments of error because that violation of the rules impaired our ability to review the merits of the appeal.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/190/0626-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 S.E.2d 416", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "422" }, { "page": "422" }, { "page": "422" }, { "page": "422" }, { "page": "422" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560350 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "131" }, { "page": "131" }, { "page": "131" }, { "page": "131" }, { "page": "131" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3746530 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "317" }, { "page": "312" }, { "page": "312" }, { "page": "312-13" }, { "page": "315-16" }, { "page": "316" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "486 U.S. 578", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6221342 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589" }, { "page": "1988" }, { "page": "586" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/486/0578-01" ] }, { "cite": "433 U.S. 72", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6177021 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "81" }, { "page": "2503" }, { "page": "604" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/433/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S.E. 302", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 3, "year": 1913, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "302" }, { "page": "302" }, { "page": "302" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N.C. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657757 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1913, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "356" }, { "page": "356" }, { "page": "356" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/164/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E.2d 126", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1930, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "127" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N.C. 788", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615941 ], "year": 1930, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "790" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0788-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "361" }, { "page": "361", "parenthetical": "discouraging the appellate courts from reviewing the merits of an appeal when doing so would leave the appellee \"without notice of the basis upon which [the] appellate court might rule\" (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "361", "parenthetical": "\"The Court of Appeals majority asserted that plaintiff's Rules violations did not impede comprehension of the issues on appeal or frustrate the appellate process. It is not the role of the appellate courts, however, to create an appeal for an appellant.\" (Internal citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3799435 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402" }, { "page": "402" }, { "page": "402" }, { "page": "402" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E.2d 90", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565497 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "570", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4149183 ], "weight": 17, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201-02" }, { "page": "193" }, { "page": "193" }, { "page": "191" }, { "page": "193" }, { "page": "198" }, { "page": "194" }, { "page": "199" }, { "page": "201" }, { "page": "198" }, { "page": "200" }, { "page": "201" }, { "page": "201" }, { "page": "201" }, { "page": "191" }, { "page": "201" }, { "page": "199" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/362/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 N.C. App. 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8203633 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "389-90" }, { "page": "390" }, { "page": "389" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/183/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "644 S.E.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638295 ], "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/644/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "657 S.E.2d 361", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640450 ], "weight": 7, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "363", "parenthetical": "citation omitted; alteration in original" }, { "page": "366" }, { "page": "366" }, { "page": "366-67" }, { "page": "366" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/657/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3746530 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "311" }, { "page": "312" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4149183 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" }, { "page": "200" }, { "page": "200" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/362/0191-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1185, "char_count": 35833, "ocr_confidence": 0.752, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.129163461557476e-08, "percentile": 0.3816726380572767 }, "sha256": "86b1b1604cdcc807b844dba95e15ea0ab3170f3e7b8c1a1ef959258059a714ec", "simhash": "1:1100c5220447ac70", "word_count": 5871 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:54:33.452279+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge CALABRIA concurs.", "Judge HUNTER concurs by separate opinion." ], "parties": [ "DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff v. WHITE OAK TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC., Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nThis Court initially heard White Oak Transport Company, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeal from: (1) judgment and order entered after a jury found it breached a contract with Dogwood Development and Management Company, LLC (\u201cplaintiff\u2019); and (2) order entered, which denied its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 50 and its motion for a new trial pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 59(a)(7) and (8). See Dogwood, 183 N.C. App. at 389-90, 645 S.E.2d at 214. A divided panel of this Court dismissed defendant\u2019s appeal based upon plaintiff\u2019s unanswered motion to dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal, which asserted numerous appellate rule violations. See id.\nDefendant appealed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-30(2) (2007). Upon remand and after further review, we find no error in the jury\u2019s verdict and affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment and post-trial orders.\nI. Background\nThis Court previously outlined the background leading to this appeal:\nOn 29 April 2004, plaintiff filed suit against defendant for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleged: (1) defendant hauled waste for Republic Services of North Carolina, LLC (\u201cRepublic\u201d) from plaintiff\u2019s waste transfer station; (2) Republic paid defendant $10.00 per ton hauled; (3) defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $.50 per ton hauled; and (4) defendant breached its agreement with plaintiff.\nOn 26 September 2005, the matter was tried before a jury and the jury found: (1) plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract; (2) defendant breached the contract; and (3) plaintiff was entitled to recover $155,365.00 from defendant. The trial court entered a judgment and order on 3 January 2006.\nOn 13 January 2006, defendant moved for [judgment notwithstanding the verdict] pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 50 and for a new trial pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 59(a)(7) and (8). The trial court denied defendant\u2019s motions by order entered 2 March 2006. Defendant appealed] from both the judgment and orders entered 3 January 2006 and 2 March 2006.\nDogwood, 183 N.C. App. at 390, 645 S.E.2d at 214.\nOn 20 December 2006, plaintiff moved to dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal based on violations of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. Defendant failed to respond to plaintiff\u2019s motion and has failed to correct its violations as of this date. Id. Plaintiff\u2019s motion to dismiss alleged defendant: (1) failed to state the grounds for appellate review in violation of Appellate Rule 28(b)(4); (2) failed to reference any assignments of error pertinent to the questions presented in its appellate brief in violation of Appellate Rule 28(b)(6); (3) failed to state the applicable standard of review for each question presented in its appellate brief in violation of Appellate Rule 28(b)(6); and (4) asserted arguments in its brief not the subject of the assignments of error as articulated in the record on appeal in violation of Appellate Rule 28(b)(6).\nA divided panel of this Court granted plaintiff\u2019s motion to dismiss and dismissed defendant\u2019s appeal based upon the four violations enumerated above. Id. at 395, 645 S.E.2d at 217. Defendant appealed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-30(2). Our Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case to this Court \u201cfor consideration ... of whether the appellate rules violations in this case implicate [Appellate] Rules 25 and 34, and if so, whether a sanction other than dismissal is appropriate.\u201d Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 201-02, 657 S.E.2d at 367 (emphasis supplied).\nII. Rules of Appellate Procedure\nIn Dogwood, our Supreme Court set out to \u201cclarify the manner in which the appellate courts should address violations of the appellate rules.\u201d 362 N.C. at 193, 657 S.E.2d at 362. Dogwood does not address how this Court should alter our approach to \u201caddress violations of the appellate rules []\u201d when presented with an unanswered motion to dismiss, which asserts appellate rules violations, and a party\u2019s failure to correct or amend those violations. 362 N.C. at 193, 657 S.E.2d at 362.\nGenerally, where a party moves for relief and the opposing party fails to respond, the requested relief is granted. For example, if a defendant fails to answer a properly served complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to entry of default and may move for a default judgment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 55 (2007). If a party fails to respond to another party\u2019s requests for admissions, the matter is deemed admitted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 36 (2007).\nOur rules of civil procedure also provide:\nWhen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(e) (2007). This Court must decide how to address a party\u2019s motion to dismiss for violations of the appellate rules when the other party fails to respond or correct the violations. 362 N.C. at 191, 657 S.E.2d at 361. We are compelled in this case to review this appeal, and, in our discretion, to determine \u201cwhether a sanction other than dismissal is appropriate.\u201d Id. at 202, 657 S.E.2d at 367 (emphasis supplied).\n\u201cThere is a presumption in favor of the regularity and validity of judgments in the lower court, and the burden is upon appellant to show prejudicial error.\u201d London v. London, 271 N.C. 568, 570, 157 S.E.2d 90, 92 (1967) (citation omitted). \u201cWithout preserved, assigned, and argued assignments of error that identify the pages where the alleged error occurred, the appellate court can only rummage through the record to ascertain error.\u201d Brantley Springett & Kelly Dellerba, Much Ado About Nothing: Dismissals for Appellate Rules Violations, North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, October 8, 2007, at 20NCLW0815, 20NCLW0818. \u201cIt is not the role of the appellate courts . . . to create an appeal for an appellant.\u201d Viar v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005).\nIn Dogwood, our Supreme Court restated ninety-five years of precedent and \u201cobservefd] that \u2018rules of procedure are necessary . . . in order to enable the courts properly to discharge their dut[y]\u2019 of resolving disputes.\u201d 362 N.C. at 193, 657 S.E.2d at 362 (quoting Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 790, 156 S.E.2d 126, 127 (1930)). \u201cIt is, therefore, necessary to have rules of procedure and to adhere to them, and if we relax them in favor of one, we might as well abolish them.\u201d Bradshaw v. Stansberry, 164 N.C. 356, 356, 79 S.E. 302, 302 (1913).\nOur Supreme Court noted in Dogwood that an \u201cappellate court faced with ... [nonjurisdictional rule violations] possesses discretion in fashioning a remedy to encourage better compliance with the rules.\u201d 362 N.C. at 198, 657 S.E.2d at 365. This Court filed 800 written opinions from 1 January through 1 July 2008 and filed a total of 1,596 written opinions in 2007. Allowing this Court \u201cdiscretion in fashioning a remedyf,]\u201d given our case load, allows for the possibility of a \u201crelax[ation] [of the rules] in favor of one[.]\u201d Id.; Bradshaw, 164 N.C. at 356, 79 S.E. at 302. Our Supreme Court previously stated that \u201cthe Rules of Appellate Procedure must 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, 359 N.C. at 402, 610 S.E.2d at 361 (citing Bradshaw, 164 N.C. at 356, 79 S.E. at 302).\nMore recently, in State v. Hart, our Supreme Court reaffirmed that uniform application of the Rules of Appellate Procedure is paramount and stated:\n[I]nconsistent application of the Rules [of Appellate Procedure] may detract from the deference which federal habeas courts will accord to their application. Although a petitioner\u2019s failure to observe a state procedural rule may constitute an \u201cadequate and independent state ground\u201d barring federal habeas review, Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 81, 97 S. Ct. 2497, 2503, 53 L. Ed. 2d 594, 604 (1977), a state procedural bar is not \u201cadequate\u201d unless it has been \u201cconsistently or regularly applied.\u201d Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 589, 108 S. Ct. 1981, 1988, 100 L. Ed. 2d 575, 586 (1988). Thus, if the Rules are not applied consistently and uniformly, federal habeas tribunals could potentially conclude that the Rules [of Appellate Procedure] are not an adequate and independent state ground barring review. Therefore, it follows that our appellate courts must enforce the Rules of Appellate Procedure uniformly.\n361 N.C. 309, 317, 644 S.E.2d 201, 206 (2007).\nA. Nature of Defendant\u2019s Appellate Rules Violations\nIn Dogwood, our Supreme Court stated \u201cthat the occurrence of default under the appellate rules arises primarily from the existence of one or more of the following circumstances: (1) waiver occurring in the trial court; (2) defects in appellate jurisdiction; and (3) violation of nonjurisdictional requirements.\u201d 362 N.C. at 194, 657 S.E.2d at 363. Here, defendant\u2019s noncompliance falls within the third category.\nWhen a party fails to comply with one or more nonjurisdictional appellate rules, the court should first determine whether the noncompliance is substantial or gross under [Appellate] Rules 25 and 34. If it so concludes, it should then determine which, if any, sanction under [Appellate] Rule 34(b) should be imposed. Finally, if the court concludes that dismissal is the appropriate sanction, it may then consider whether the circumstances of the case justify invoking [Appellate] Rule 2 to reach the merits of the appeal.\nId. at 201, 657 S.E.2d at 367.\nB. Appellate Rules 25 and 34\n\u201cBased on the language of [Appellate] Rules 25 and 34, the appellate court may not consider sanctions of any sort when a party\u2019s noncompliance with nonjurisdictional requirements of the rules does not rise to the level of a \u2018substantial failure\u2019 or \u2018gross violation.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 199, 657 S.E.2d at 366 (emphasis supplied).\nIn determining whether a party\u2019s noncompliance with the appellate rules rises to the level of a substantial failure or gross violation, the court may consider, among other factors, whether and to what extent the noncompliance impairs the court\u2019s task of review and whether and to what extent review on the merits would frustrate the adversarial process. See Hart, 361 N.C. at 312, 644 S.E.2d at 203 (noting that dismissal may not be appropriate when a party\u2019s noncompliance does not \u201c \u2018impede comprehension of the issues on appeal or frustrate the appellate process\u2019 \u201d (citation omitted)); Viar, 359 N.C. at 402, 610 S.E.2d at 361 (discouraging the appellate courts from reviewing the merits of an appeal when doing so would leave the appellee \u201cwithout notice of the basis upon which [the] appellate court might rule\u201d (citation omitted)). The court may also consider the number of rules violated, although in certain instances noncompliance with a discrete requirement of the rules may constitute a default precluding substantive review. See, e.g., N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (\u201cAssignment 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).\nId. at 200, 657 S.E.2d at 366-67 (emphasis supplied).\nHere, defendant failed to: (1) direct the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made, with clear and specific record or transcript references, in violation of Appellate Rule 10(c)(1); (2) state the grounds for appellate review in violation of Appellate Rule 28(b)(4); (3) reference any assignments of error pertinent to the questions presented in violation of Appellate Rule 28(b)(6); and (4) state the applicable standard of review for each question presented in violation of Appellate Rule 28(b)(6). See Dogwood, 183 N.C. App. at 389, 645 S.E.2d at 213.\nIn addition to the numerous appellate rules violations outlined above, defendant\u2019s assignments of error numbered 1 and 2 are not confined to a single issue of law and are overly broad in violation of Appellate Rule 10(c)(1). Defendant\u2019s assignments of error numbered 1 and 2 state:\n1. The Court\u2019s granting Plaintiff judgment from Defendant in the sum of $155,365.00, plus interest which shall accrue at the legal rate from December 31, 2004, until paid and costs in the amount of $1,426.14 to be \"taxed against the Defendant.\n2. The Court\u2019s denying Defendant\u2019s Motion For Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict under Rule 50 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and Defendant\u2019s Motion for New Trial pursuant to Rule 59(a)(7) and (8) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.\n\u201cTh[ese] assignments] \u2014 like a hoopskirt \u2014 cover]] everything and touch]] nothing. [They are] based on numerous exceptions and attempt]] to present several separate questions of law \u2014 none of which are set out in the assignments] [themselves] \u2014 thus leaving [them] broadside and ineffective.\u201d State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123, 131, 171 S.E.2d 416, 422 (1970). We hold that defendant\u2019s appellate rules violations \u201crise to the level of a \u2018substantial failure\u2019 or \u2018gross violation.\u2019 \u201d Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 199, 657 S.E.2d at 366.\nThe concurring opinion asserts that defendant\u2019s second assignment of error does not \u201cimpede comprehension of the issues on appeal or frustrate the appellate process.\u201d (Citing Hart, 361 N.C. at 312, 644 S.E.2d at 203). Our Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected this notion as a basis to review otherwise defective assignments of error. See Viar, 359 N.C. at 402, 610 S.E.2d at 361 (\u201cThe Court of Appeals majority asserted that plaintiff\u2019s Rules violations did not impede comprehension of the issues on appeal or frustrate the appellate process. It is not the role of the appellate courts, however, to create an appeal for an appellant.\u201d (Internal citation omitted)); Hart, 361 N.C. at 312-13, 644 S.E.2d at 203 (\u201cIn Viar, we neither admonished the Court of Appeals to avoid applying Rule 2, nor did we state that the court may not review an appeal that violates the Rules, even when rules violations d[o] not impede comprehension of the issues on appeal or frustrate the appellate process. We simply noted that the Court of Appeals majority had justified its application of Rule 2 in Viar by using that phrase. Rather than approving this justification for applying Rule 2 to that scenario, we rejected it and dismissed the Viar appeal. In so doing, we held that the Court of Appeals improperly applied Rule 2 when it created an appeal for the appellant and addressed issues not raised or argued.\u201d) (Internal quotation omitted). We turn to \u201cwhich, if any, sanction under [Appellate] Rule 34(b) should be imposed.\u201d Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 201, 657 S.E.2d at 367.\nC. Appellate Rule 34(b)\nAppellate Rule 34(b) states:\nA court of the appellate division may impose one or more of the following sanctions: (1) dismissal of the appeal; (2) monetary damages including, but not limited to, a. single.or double costs, b. damages occasioned by delay, c. reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred because of the frivolous appeal or proceeding; (3) any other sanction deemed just and proper.\nN.C.R. App. P. 34(b) (2006).\n\u201c[A] party\u2019s failure to comply with nonjurisdictional rule requirements normally should not lead to dismissal of the appeal.\u201d Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 198, 657 S.E.2d at 365 (citation omitted); see Hannah v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 190 N.C. App. 626, 632, 660 S.E.2d 600, 604 (2008) (\u201cAs a result of counsel\u2019s failure to cite any authority at all in violation of Rule 28, we have not considered the merits of three of the assignments of error because that violation of the rules impaired our ability to review the merits of the appeal.\u201d).\nGiven defendant\u2019s failure to respond to the motion to dismiss and the nature and number of uncorrected nonjurisdictional appellate rules violations in this case, we hold plaintiff\u2019s noncompliance to be substantial, but not so egregious as to warrant dismissal of defendant\u2019s appeal in its entirety. See Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 200, 657 S.E.2d at 366 (\u201c[0]nly in the most egregious instances of nonjurisdictional default will dismissal of the appeal be appropriate.\u201d) (Citation omitted). Defendant\u2019s \u201cbroadside and ineffective[]\u201d assignments of error numbered 1 and 2 should be dismissed. Kirby, 276 N.C. at 131, 171 S.E.2d at 422. In the exercise of our discretion, defendant\u2019s attorney is ordered to pay double the printing costs of this appeal. N.C.R. App. P. 34(b); Luther v. Seawell, 191 N.C. App. 139, 145, - S.E.2d -, - (June 17, 2008) (No. COA07-830) (\u201cGiven the number of rules violations in this case, we hold that plaintiffs\u2019 noncompliance was substantial in this case but not so gross as to warrant dismissal.... As such, we deny the motion to dismiss as to defendant Seawell and order plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys to pay double the printing costs of this appeal pursuant to Rule 34(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.\u201d). The Clerk of this Court is to enter an order accordingly. Having determined that defendant\u2019s first two assignments of error should be dismissed, we turn to \u201cwhether the circumstances of the case justify invoking [Appellate] Rule 2 Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 201, 657 S.E.2d at 367.\nD. Appellate Rule 2\nAppellate Rule 2 states:\nTo prevent manifest injustice to a party, or to expedite decision in the public interest, either court of the appellate division may, except as otherwise expressly provided by these rules, suspend or vary the requirements or provisions of any of these rules in a case pending before it upon application of a party or upon its own initiative, and may order proceedings in accordance with its directions.\nN.C.R. App. P. 2 (2006).\nIn Dogwood, our Supreme Court stated, Appellate Rule 2 \u201cmay only [be invoked] on rare occasions and under exceptional circumstances . . . .\u201d 362 N.C. at 201, 657 S.E.2d at 367 (citation omitted). \u201c \u2018Rule 2 relates to the residual power of [the] appellate courts to consider, in exceptional circumstances, significant issues of importance in the public interest or to prevent injustice which appears manifest to the [c]ourt and only in such instances.\u2019\u2019 \u201d Hart, 361 N.C. at 315-16, 644 S.E.2d at 205 (quoting Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 66, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299-300 (1999)) (emphasis supplied).\nBefore exercising [Appellate] Rule 2 to prevent a manifest injustice, both this Court and the Court of Appeals must be cognizant of the appropriate circumstances in which the extraordinary step of suspending the operation of the appellate rules is a viable option. Fundamental fairness and the predictable operation of the courts for which our Rules of Appellate Procedure were designed depend upon the consistent exercise of this authority.\nId. at 317, 644 S.E.2d at 206.\nThe decision whether to invoke Appellate Rule 2 is purely discretionary and is to be limited to \u201crare occasions\u201d in which a fundamental purpose of the appellate rules is at stake. Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 201, 657 S.E.2d at 367. Appellate Rule 2 has most consistently been invoked to prevent manifest injustice in appeals in which the substantial rights of a criminal defendant are affected. Hart, 361 N.C. at 316, 644 S.E.2d at 205 (citing State v. Sanders, 312 N.C. 318, 320, 321 S.E.2d 836, 837 (1984)).\nNothing in the record or briefs demonstrates any \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d to suspend or vary the rules in order \u201cto prevent manifest injustice to a party, or to expedite decision in the public interest.\u201d Id. at 315-16, 644 S.E.2d at 205 (citation omitted). Our Supreme Court\u2019s opinion in Dogwood did not validate \u201choopskirt\u201d assignments of error nor alter the Supreme Court\u2019s precedent in Kirby or this Court\u2019s numerous precedents dismissing \u201cbroadside and ineffective[]\u201d assignments of error. Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 191, 657 S.E.2d at 361; Kirby, 276 N.C. at 131, 171 S.E.2d at 422; see May v. Down East Homes of Beulaville, Inc., 175 N.C. App. 416, 418, 623 S.E.2d 345, 346, cert, denied, 360 N.C. 482, 632 S.E.2d 176 (2006) (\u201cPlaintiff\u2019s repeated assertions that the trial court\u2019s rulings were \u2018contrary to the caselaw of this jurisdiction\u2019 fail to identify the issues briefed on appeal. We conclude these assignments of error are too broad, vague, and unspecific to comport with the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. . . . Because plaintiff failed to properly preserve for appellate review the issues presented on appeal, his appeal is [dismissed.\u201d (Internal quotation omitted)); Calhoun v. WHA Med. Clinic, PLLC, 178 N.C. App. 585, 602, 632 S.E.2d 563, 574 (2006), disc. rev. denied, 361 N.C. 350, 644 S.E.2d 5 (2007) (\u201cBecause the assignment of error at issue states that the challenged finding was \u2018contrary to law\u2019 without stating any specific reason that the finding is \u2018contrary to law\u2019 it fails to identify the issues briefed on appeal. Since plaintiffs failed to properly preserve this argument, we do not address it.\u201d (Internal citations omitted)).\nIn the exercise of our discretion, we decline to invoke Appellate Rule 2 to review defendant\u2019s assignments of error numbered 1 and 2. Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 201, 657 S.E.2d at 367. Defendant\u2019s assignment\u2019s of error numbered 1 and 2 are dismissed as \u201cbroadside and ineffective.\u201d Kirby, 276 N.C. at 131, 171 S.E.2d at 422. We now turn to the remaining assignments of error asserted in defendant\u2019s appeal.\nIII. Issues\nDefendant argues the trial court erred when it failed to grant defendant\u2019s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial.\nIV. \u25a0 Standard of Review\nA. Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict\n[A] motion [for judgment notwithstanding the verdict] is essentially a renewal of an earlier motion for directed verdict. Accordingly, if the motion for directed verdict could have been properly granted, then the subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should also be granted. In considering any motion for directed verdict, the trial court must view all the evidence that supports the non-movant\u2019s claim as being true and that evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-movant, giving to the non-movant the benefit of every reasonable inference that may legitimately be drawn from the evidence with contradictions, conflicts, and inconsistencies being resolved in the non-movant\u2019s favor. This Court has also held that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is cautiously and sparingly granted. It is also elementary that the movant for [judgment notwithstanding the verdict] must make a motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence.\nBryant v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 313 N.C. 362, 368-69, 329 S.E.2d 333, 337-38 (1985) (internal citations omitted). \u201cOn appeal our standard of review for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the same as that for a directed verdict; that is, whether the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury.\u201d Whitaker v. Akers, 137 N.C. App. 274, 277, 527 S.E.2d 721, 724, disc. rev. denied, 352 N.C. 157, 544 S.E.2d 245 (2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\nB. Motion for New Trial\nThe standard of review for a trial court\u2019s denial of a motion for a new trial based upon insufficiency of the evidence is abuse of discretion. In Re Buck, 350 N.C. 621, 624, 516 S.E.2d 858, 860 (1999). \u201c \u2018An appellate court should not disturb a discretionary Rule 59 order unless it is reasonably convinced by the cold record that the trial judge\u2019s ruling probably amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 625, 516 S.E.2d at 861 (quoting Anderson v. Hollifield, 345 N.C. 480, 483, 480 S.E.2d 661, 663 (1997)).\nV. Defendant\u2019s Motions\nDefendant argues the trial court erred when it denied its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial because: (1) plaintiff failed to prove there was a meeting of the minds between the parties and (2) N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 25-1-206 limits plaintiff\u2019s recovery to $5,000.00.\nA. Meeting of the Minds\n\u201cTo constitute a valid contract the parties must assent to the same thing in the same sense, and their minds must meet as to all the terms. If any portion of the proposed terms is not settled, there is no agreement.\u201d Goeckel v. Stokely, 236 N.C. 604, 607, 73 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1952) (citations omitted). Viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that tended to show and for the jury to conclude that defendant\u2019s agents agreed to pay plaintiff $0.50 per ton of waste defendant hauled from plaintiff\u2019s waste transfer station. The jury heard all the evidence and returned a verdict for plaintiff. The trial court correctly entered judgment consistent with the terms of the jury\u2019s verdict. The trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial wherein defendant asserted plaintiff\u2019s failure to prove a meeting of the minds between the parties. Whitaker, 137 N.C. App. at 277, 527 S.E.2d at 724; In Re Buck, 350 N.C. at 624, 516 S.E.2d at 860. This assignment of error is overruled.\nB. N.C. Gen. Stat- 8 25-1-206\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 25-1-206 (2005) states:\n(1) Except in the cases described in subsection (2) of this section a contract for the sale of personal property is not enforceable by way of action or defense beyond five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) in amount or value of remedy unless there is some writing which indicates that a contract for sale has been made between the parties at a defined or stated price, reasonably identifies the subject matter, and is signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent.\n(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to contracts for the sale of goods (G.S. 25-2-201) nor of securities (G.S. 25-8-113) nor to security agreements (G.S. 25-9-203).\nDefendant\u2019s reliance on N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 25-1-206, the statute of frauds provision in the Uniform Commercial Code, is misplaced. The parties\u2019 agreement was in the nature of a fee or charge to compensate plaintiff for its efforts to create the waste transfer station and to provide defendant the opportunity to haul waste from the transfer station. Because the parties\u2019s contract was not for the sale of personal property, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 25-1-206 does not limit plaintiff\u2019s recovery to $5,000.00. See Rowell v. N.C. Equip. Co., 146 N.C. App. 431, 435, 552 S.E.2d 274, 277 (2001) (\u201cWe have previously determined that the contract between these parties was for repairs; therefore, [N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 25-1-206, -2-201 (1999)] do not apply.\u201d). The trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial based on defendant\u2019s assertion that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 25-1-206 limited plaintiff\u2019s recovery. This assignment of error is overruled.\nVI. Conclusion\nDefendant\u2019s numerous and uncorrected appellate rules violations \u201crise to the level of a \u2018substantial failure\u2019 or \u2018gross violation.\u2019 \u201d Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 199, 657 S.E.2d at 366. Defendant\u2019s assignments of error numbered 1 and 2 are dismissed as \u201cbroadside and ineffective []\u201d and defendant\u2019s attorney is ordered to pay double the printing costs of this appeal pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 34(b). Kirby, 276 N.C. at 131, 171 S.E.2d at 422.\nPlaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish aprima facie breach of contract claim and for the jury to resolve the parties\u2019 factual dispute. Whitaker, 137 N.C. App. at 277, 527 S.E.2d at 724; In Re Buck, 350 N.C. at 624, 516 S.E.2d at 860.\nWe find no error in the jury\u2019s verdict or the judgment entered thereon. The trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial. The trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial are affirmed.\nNo error in part and affirmed in part.\nJudge CALABRIA concurs.\nJudge HUNTER concurs by separate opinion.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." }, { "text": "HUNTER, Judge,\nconcurring.\nWhile I agree with the majority that there was no error in defendant\u2019s trial and that the trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, I write separately because I disagree with the majority\u2019s dismissal of defendant\u2019s second assignment of error and its characterization and analysis of our Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision in Dogwood Dev. & Mmgt. Co., LLC v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 657 S.E.2d 361 (2008).\nAppellate courts have a strong preference for deciding cases on the merits. Our Supreme Court\u2019s recent decisions in State v. Hart, 361 N.C. 309, 644 S.E.2d 201 (2007), and Dogwood expressed a policy to decide cases on their merits and thus refrain from dismissing cases for nonjurisdictional rules violations that do not impede the review of the case. This policy not only ensures fundamental fairness to the litigants involved, but also benefits the bar and facilitates open access to the equal administration of justice in our courts.\nDefendant\u2019s second assignment of error states: \u201c2. The Court\u2019s denying Defendant\u2019s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict under Rule 50 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and Defendant\u2019s Motion for New Trial pursuant to Rule 59(a)(7) and (8) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.\u201d I do not agree with the majority that defendant\u2019s second assignment of error constitutes a substantial violation of Rule 10(c)(1) warranting dismissal of the issue. As our Supreme Court has held, \u201c[r]ules of practice and procedure are devised to promote the ends of justice, not to defeat them.\u201d Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 194, 657 S.E.2d at 363 (citation omitted; alteration in original). As such, \u201cevery violation of the rules does not require dismissal of the appeal or the issue[.]\" Hart, 361 N.C. at 311, 644 S.E.2d at 202 (emphasis added). Indeed, \u201conly in the most egregious instances of nonjurisdictional default will dismissal of the appeal be appropriate.\u201d Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 200, 657 S.E.2d at 366. Rather, \u201cthe appellate court may not consider sanctions of any sort when a party\u2019s noncompliance with nonjurisdictional requirements of the rules does not rise to the level of a \u2018substantial failure\u2019 or \u2018gross violation.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 199, 657 S.E.2d at 366.\nIn the case sub judice, defendant\u2019s second assignment of error did not \u201crise to the level of a \u2018substantial failure\u2019 or \u2018gross violation[,]\u2019 \u201d id., and certainly did not \u201c \u2018impede comprehension of the issues on appeal or frustrate the appellate process.\u2019 \u201d Hart, 361 N.C. at 312, 644 S.E.2d at 203 (citation omitted). As our Supreme Court indicated in Dogwood, dismissal of an issue is not appropriate unless a party\u2019s \u201cnoncompliance impairs the court\u2019s task of review\u201d and \u201creview on the merits would frustrate the adversarial process.\u201d Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 200, 657 S.E.2d at 366-67. Accordingly, this Court \u201cshould simply perform its core function[,]\u201d id. at 199, 657 S.E.2d at 366, and review the merits of defendant\u2019s appeal as to the trial court\u2019s denial of his motions.\nRegarding defendant\u2019s other rules violations in this appeal, I agree with the majority that monetary sanctions are appropriate.\nThus, while I agree with the outcome of this decision, I concur in the result only and write separately for the aforementioned reasons.\n. It is of note that many of the procedural problems faced by the litigants in the case at bar and in other similar cases before our court arise from the violation of the assignment of error requirement found in Appellate Rule 10(c)(1). Recently, the North Carolina Bar Association submitted to the Supreme Court a proposal to abolish the assignment of error requirement. This proposal was endorsed by the N.C. Advocates for Justice and the N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.\n. I find it pertinent to remind the Bar that in future cases the offending attorney\u2019s response to a motion to dismiss for appellate rule violations should be to file a motion to amend his brief and correct those violations.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "HUNTER, Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "J. Dennis Bailey, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Steven D. Smith, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff v. WHITE OAK TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC., Defendant\nNo. COA06-1073-2\n(Filed 19 August 2008)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 nonjurisdictional appellate rules violations \u2014 sanctions\u2014dismissal of assignments of error \u2014 double printing costs\nAlthough defendant\u2019s numerous and uncorrected nonjurisdictional appellate rules violations in a breach of contract case (including failure to direct the attention of the appellate court to the particular error with clear and specific record or transcript references as required by N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(1), failure to state the grounds for appellate review as required by N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(4), failure to reference any assignments of error pertinent to the questions presented as required by N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6), and failure to state the applicable standard of review for each question presented as required by N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6)), coupled with his overly broad assignments of error numbered 1 and 2 that failed to be confined to a single issue of law as required by N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(1), rose to the level of a substantial failure or gross violation, the errors were not so egregious as to warrant dismissal of defendant\u2019s appeal in its entirety. As a lesser sanction, defendant\u2019s assignments of error numbered 1 and 2 were dismissed, and in the exercise of its discretion, the Court of Appeals ordered defendant\u2019s attorney to pay double the printing costs of the appeal under N.C. R. App. P. 34(b).\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 appellate rule 2 \u2014 exceptional circumstances \u2014 prevention of manifest injustice \u2014 public interest\nIn the exercise of its discretion, the Court of Appeals declined to invoke N.C. R. App. P. 2 to review defendant\u2019s assignments of error numbered 1 and 2 that were dismissed as broadside and ineffective because nothing in the record or briefs demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to suspend or vary the rules in order to prevent manifest injustice to a party or to expedite decision in the public interest.\n3. Contracts\u2014 breach \u2014 motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict \u2014 motion for new trial\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in a breach of contract case by denying defendant\u2019s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial because: (1) viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party revealed that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that tended to show, and for the jury to conclude, that defendant\u2019s agents agreed to pay plaintiff $0.50 per ton of waste defendant hauled from plaintiff\u2019s waste transfer station; and (2) although defendant relied on N.C.G.S. \u00a7 25-1-206, the statute of frauds provision in the Uniform Commercial Code, to attempt to limit plaintiff\u2019s recovery to $5,000, the parties\u2019 agreement was not for the sale of personal property, but was instead in the nature of a fee or charge to compensate plaintiff for its efforts to create the waste transfer station and to provide defendant the opportunity to haul waste from the transfer station.\nJudge HUNTER concurring in a separate opinion.\nAppeal by defendant from orders entered 3 January 2006 and 2 March 2006 by Judge Howard R. Greeson, Jr., in Forsyth County Superior Court. This case was originally heard in the Court of Appeals on 24 April 2007. See Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 183 N.C. App. 389, 645 S.E.2d 212 (2007). Upon remand by order from the North Carolina Supreme Court, filed 7 March 2008. See Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co., LLC v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 657 S.E.2d 361 (2008).\nJ. Dennis Bailey, for plaintiff-appellee.\nSteven D. Smith, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0114-01", "first_page_order": 142, "last_page_order": 157 }