{
  "id": 8519831,
  "name": "ARTHUR VANN, III v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vann v. North Carolina State Bar",
  "decision_date": "1986-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 8510SC857",
  "first_page": "173",
  "last_page": "175",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 N.C. App. 173"
    }
  ],
  "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": "194 S.E. 2d 151",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 672",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568262,
        8568339,
        8568309,
        8568188,
        8568221
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0672-03",
        "/nc/282/0672-05",
        "/nc/282/0672-04",
        "/nc/282/0672-01",
        "/nc/282/0672-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 S.E. 2d 224",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 531",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552092
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/15/0531-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 539",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574301
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0020-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 4520,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.8,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4370341458192259e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6524150635809269
    },
    "sha256": "55d83c90f6806bce6203c775aac99ff46daf861eb256d472a0adea228a46c2ff",
    "simhash": "1:39fe94977dddf716",
    "word_count": 731
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:35:53.333939+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Webb concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ARTHUR VANN, III v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nIn its motion to dismiss, respondent asserted that in his petition for review, Vann failed to file a brief as required in administrative appeals to the Superior Court of Wake County and therefore respondent lacked adequate notice of the errors allegedly made by respondent in its proceeding in this matter. In its order, the trial court found that Vann had failed to file the required brief and also found that Vann\u2019s petition lacked the specificity required in such appeals by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150A-46 (1983). We agree that Vann\u2019s petition did not meet the statutory requirements and affirm the trial court\u2019s order.\nArticle 4 of Chapter 150A, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 150A-43 through -52 (1983), makes provisions for judicial review of final agency decisions in contested cases. Section 46 of the statute provides that petitions for judicial review \u201cshall explicitly state what exceptions are taken to the decision or procedure of the agency . . . .\u201d Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 801 (1976) defines \u201cexplicit\u201d as \u201ccharacterized by full clear expression: being without vagueness or ambiguity: leaving nothing implied.\u201d In his petition, Vann did not except to any finding of fact or conclusions of law, but made only generalized complaints as to certain procedural aspects of the hearing before respondent. Giving the statute the liberal construction required to effectuate and preserve Vann\u2019s right to judicial review of respondent\u2019s order, see In re Appeal of Harris, 273 N.C. 20, 159 S.E. 2d 539 (1968) and James v. Board of Education, 15 N.C. App. 531, 190 S.E. 2d 224, appeal dismissed, 282 N.C. 672, 194 S.E. 2d 151 (1972), we nevertheless conclude that Vann\u2019s petition was not sufficiently explicit to allow effective judicial review of respondent\u2019s proceedings.\nIn his brief to this Court, Vann contends that his allegation that respondent conducted its hearing pursuant to the \u201cnew\u201d Rules of the N.C. State Bar, Art. IX, \u00a7 25 (1984) rather than under the \u201capplicable\u201d or \u201cold\u201d Rules, Art. IX, \u00a7 25 (1975) was explicit enough to merit judicial review. Vann has not seen fit to point out or explain what the differences are, if any, in the \u201cnew\u201d and \u201cold\u201d Rules, nor has he suggested how he may have been prejudiced in this respect. Vann follows this argument by references to Paragraph 8.B of his petition arguing it as being a \u201ccorollary\u201d to his \u201cnew\u201d Rule versus \u201cold\u201d Rule argument. Paragraphs 8.A & B read as follows:\n8. Petitioner respectfully excepts to the committee\u2019s report which was the basis upon which the North Carolina State Bar Council rejected Petitioner\u2019s Reinstatement Petition on the following grounds:\nA. That the committee placed the Petitioner under the new rules of the Bar rather than the old rules for reinstatement even though both parties agreed that the old rules should apply-\nB. That the chairman continually applied a different standard than that set forth by the bar as shown in his questioning of every witness presented.\nSuch generalized statements characterize the deficiencies of Vann\u2019s petition. We reject these arguments.\nVann also argues that the trial court erred in concluding that his petition should be dismissed for his failure to file a brief in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Tenth Judicial District (local rules), contending that he was not properly apprised of the need to file such a brief. Because we have held that the trial court properly dismissed Vann\u2019s petition on other grounds, we deem it unnecessary to reach or decide this question.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Arnold and Webb concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WELLS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Arthur Vann, III, pro se.",
      "A. Root Edmonson for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARTHUR VANN, III v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR\nNo. 8510SC857\n(Filed 4 February 1986)\nAdministrative Law \u00a7 5; Attorneys at Law \u00a7 11\u2014 appeal from administrative decision-lack of specificity of petition\nA petition for judicial review of the State Bar\u2019s denial of a petition for reinstatement to the Bar was properly dismissed where the petition for review failed to comply with the specificity requirements of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A-46.\nAppeal by petitioner from Bailey, Judge. Judgment entered 10 June 1985. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 January 1986.\nPetitioner (Vann) sought review in the superior court of respondent\u2019s denial of Vann\u2019s petition for reinstatement to the Bar. Respondent moved to dismiss Vann\u2019s petition and, following a hearing, the trial court allowed respondent\u2019s motion. From the trial court\u2019s order dismissing his petition, Vann has appealed to this Court.\nArthur Vann, III, pro se.\nA. Root Edmonson for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0173-01",
  "first_page_order": 201,
  "last_page_order": 203
}