{
  "id": 8520251,
  "name": "DAN LAMB, GILBERT MILLER, and wife, MAE MILLER v. CHELSIE GROCE, PAUL GROCE, and RANDY GROCE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lamb v. Groce",
  "decision_date": "1989-08-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 8823DC1378",
  "first_page": "220",
  "last_page": "222",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "95 N.C. App. 220"
    }
  ],
  "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": "223 S.E.2d 380",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "387"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570748
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "484"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0473-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S.E. 52",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1933,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 N.C. 297",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628300
      ],
      "year": 1933,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/205/0297-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 S.E.2d 514",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N.C. App. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524828
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/71/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 S.E.2d 303",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.C. 208",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572185
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/264/0208-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 281,
    "char_count": 4216,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.73,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.767998294065762e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3604210129625318
    },
    "sha256": "d5a2b7a076d86c9f1d8909c5f21c1b51d11bb2c2ee07a496d1bc6f4da0ce3545",
    "simhash": "1:058ba27707dea5f6",
    "word_count": 694
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:25:49.576177+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Johnson and Eagles concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DAN LAMB, GILBERT MILLER, and wife, MAE MILLER v. CHELSIE GROCE, PAUL GROCE, and RANDY GROCE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORR, Judge.\nDefendants assign as error the trial court\u2019s granting of Cor-rell\u2019s motion to withdraw and its refusal to allow a continuance so that defendants could obtain substitute counsel.\nAn attorney may withdraw from an action after making an appearance if there is (1) justifiable cause, (2) reasonable notice to his clients, and (3) permission of the court. Smith v. Bryant, 264 N.C. 208, 141 S.E.2d 303 (1965); Williams and Michael v. Kennamer, 71 N.C. App. 215, 321 S.E.2d 514 (1984). Generally, clients\u2019 failure to pay or secure payment of proper fees upon reasonable demand is justifiable cause for an attorney\u2019s withdrawal. Smith, supra; Gosnell v. Hilliard, 205 N.C. 297, 171 S.E. 52 (1933). Prior notice which is specific and reasonable is also required. Williams and Michael, supra. In this case, defendants had two weeks notice that Correll could not represent them at trial without payment. We therefore hold the requirements for withdrawal were fully met and the trial court did not err in allowing defendants\u2019 attorney to withdraw.\nAs for the trial court\u2019s refusal to grant a continuance, the general rule is that \u201can attorney\u2019s withdrawal on the eve of the trial of a civil case is not ipso facto grounds for a continuance.\u201d Shankle v. Shankle, 289 N.C. 473, 484, 223 S.E.2d 380, 387 (1976). Such a decision is instead within the trial court\u2019s discretion. Id. This rule presupposes that the attorney has given sufficient prior notice of his intent to withdraw. Williams and Michael, supra. If not, the trial court must either grant a reasonable continuance or deny the attorney\u2019s motion to withdraw. Id. In this case, sufficient notice of Correll\u2019s intent to withdraw was given; therefore, the trial court had discretion to grant or deny a motion for a continuance. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case. Defendants\u2019 arguments are without merit.\nFor these reasons, in the District Court we find no error.\nNo error.\nJudges Johnson and Eagles concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ORR, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Max F. Ferree for plaintiff-appellees.",
      "Robert P. Laney for defendant-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAN LAMB, GILBERT MILLER, and wife, MAE MILLER v. CHELSIE GROCE, PAUL GROCE, and RANDY GROCE\nNo. 8823DC1378\n(Filed 15 August 1989)\nAttorneys at Law \u00a7 6\u2014 withdrawal from case \u2014 withdrawal for nonpayment \u2014sufficient notice \u2014denial of continuance discretionary\nThe trial court did not err in allowing defendants\u2019 attorney to withdraw where defendants had two weeks notice that the attorney would not represent them at trial if he was not paid; furthermore, it was within the trial court\u2019s discretion to grant or deny defendants\u2019 motion for continuance made when their attorney was allowed to withdraw on the day the case was called for trial.\nAPPEAL by defendants from Helms (Michael EJ, Judge. Judgment entered 22 July 1988 in District Court, WILKES County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 June 1989.\nPlaintiffs filed this action on 30 July 1987 seeking double damages from defendants for trespass and unlawful cutting of timber pursuant to G.S. 1-539.1. Plaintiffs and defendants then obtained professional surveys of the property in question, but defendants\u2019 survey was not to their satisfaction. The matter was continued at least three times in order for defendants to obtain another survey. On 6 May 1988, Judge Edgar B. Gregory entered an order requiring the parties to submit plats to the court on or before 30 June 1988 and to be ready for trial at the July 1988 session of Wilkes County District Court.\nOn 20 July 1988, the matter came on for hearing before Judge Helms. Defendants\u2019 counsel, Mike Correll, made another motion to continue based on the lack of a survey, and the court denied the motion. Correll then moved to withdraw as attorney of record for defendants. He based his motion on defendants\u2019 failure to pay him, and he stated that he had given two weeks\u2019 notice to defendants that he could not represent them if not paid. The court granted the motion and Correll was allowed to withdraw. Defendants\u2019 subsequent motion for a continuance was denied.\nFollowing the presentation of evidence, the jury found for plaintiffs and the court entered a judgment awarding them $4,000.00 pursuant to G.S. 1-539.1. Defendants appeal.\nMax F. Ferree for plaintiff-appellees.\nRobert P. Laney for defendant-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0220-01",
  "first_page_order": 248,
  "last_page_order": 250
}