{
  "id": 8526454,
  "name": "DUKE POWER COMPANY v. J. W. FLINCHEM, MINNIE FLINCHEM, JOHN FLINCHEM, HELEN FLINCHEM",
  "name_abbreviation": "Duke Power Co. v. Flinchem",
  "decision_date": "1982-11-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 8123SC1363",
  "first_page": "349",
  "last_page": "350",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 N.C. App. 349"
    }
  ],
  "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": "231 S.E. 2d 607",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 630",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558856
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0630-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3589,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.729,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20557202369713445
    },
    "sha256": "41c87c041ada7191ed078cd67fa202975a1ac09a093965ae54baffcca03451a5",
    "simhash": "1:839e7cb0794cd8be",
    "word_count": 590
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:54.350150+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Webb concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DUKE POWER COMPANY v. J. W. FLINCHEM, MINNIE FLINCHEM, JOHN FLINCHEM, HELEN FLINCHEM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nRespondents\u2019 appeal violates a number of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. First, in violation of Rule 9(b)(4), the items constituting the record on appeal are not arranged in the order in which they occurred or were filed in the trial division, but are scattered in random fashion throughout the record. Second, there has been no attempt whatsoever to narrate the evidence as required by Rule 9(c)(1). Instead, respondents have simply included in the record the total record of evidence, consisting of the testimony of nineteen witnesses and comprising approximately 180 pages of the record on appeal, in question and answer form. Third, in violation of Rule 10(c), respondents have failed to properly identify and set out their assignments of error. Fourth, in violation of Rule 10(b), respondents have included in the record on appeal hundreds of exceptions which were not properly preserved for our review by action of counsel taken during the course of the trial. Finally, respondents\u2019 brief, in form and content, is in repeated violation of the requirements of Rule 28. In short, the manner in which the appeal has been filed does not allow effective appellate review.\nRules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and failure to observe them is grounds for dismissal of the appeal. See Britt v. Allen, 291 N.C. 630, 231 S.E. 2d 607 (1977).\nFor the reasons stated, the appeal in this case must be and is\nDismissed.\nJudges Vaughn and Webb concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WELLS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McElwee, McElwee, Cannon & Warden by William H. McElwee, III and William C. Warden, Jr., for appellee.",
      "J. W. Flinchem, Minnie Flinchem, John Flinchem, and Helen Flinchem, pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DUKE POWER COMPANY v. J. W. FLINCHEM, MINNIE FLINCHEM, JOHN FLINCHEM, HELEN FLINCHEM\nNo. 8123SC1363\n(Filed 2 November 1982)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 41.1\u2014 failure to follow Rules of Appellate Procedure \u2014appeal dismissed\nAppeal is dismissed for failure of appellants to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure where items constituting the record on appeal were not arranged in the order in which they occurred or were filed in the trial division in violation of App. R. 9(b)(4); the evidence was not narrated as required by App. R. 9(c)(1); appellants failed properly to identify and set out their assignments of error in violation of App. R. 10(c); appellants have included in the record on appeal hundreds of exceptions which were not properly preserved for review at trial in violation of App. R. 10(b); and appellants\u2019 brief, in form and content, was in repeated violation of the requirements of App. R. 28.\nAppeal by respondents from Long, Judge. Judgment entered 11 May 1981 in WILKES County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 September 1982.\nPetitioner Duke Power Company (Duke) initiated proceedings to acquire a right-of-way over respondents\u2019 land for electric transmission lines. Proceedings before the Clerk of Superior Court resulted in an order of the Clerk, finding that Duke has the right to acquire the right-of-way by power of eminent domain; that Duke could not obtain its needed right-of-way by contract or agreement; and that the right-of-way sought by Duke was necessary for the operation of Duke\u2019s system. The Clerk ordered that Duke was empowered to condemn respondents\u2019 land and appointed commissioners to determine the compensation due respondents for the easement sought by Duke. The Commissioners assessed respondents\u2019 damages. The Clerk affirmed the Commissioners\u2019 report. On appeal, the matter was tried before Judge Long and a jury. From judgment entered on the jury\u2019s verdict, respondents have appealed.\nMcElwee, McElwee, Cannon & Warden by William H. McElwee, III and William C. Warden, Jr., for appellee.\nJ. W. Flinchem, Minnie Flinchem, John Flinchem, and Helen Flinchem, pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0349-01",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 382
}