You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Neill Grading & Construction Company, Inc. v. Lingafelt

Citations: 616 S.E.2d 541; 359 N.C. 635; 2005 N.C. LEXIS 649Docket: No. 112PA05.

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina; June 30, 2005; North Carolina; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The North Carolina Court of Appeals received a notice of appeal from the Defendants on February 22, 2005, and a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a substantial constitutional question from the Plaintiff. On June 30, 2005, the Court allowed the motion to dismiss the appeal. Additionally, the Defendants filed an alternative petition on the same date for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals' decision, which was also allowed by the Court on June 30, 2005. The Defendants are required to submit an appeal bond of $250, either in cash or via a written undertaking with appropriate surety, as outlined in Appellate Rule 17(b). The case is officially docketed as of the certification date, and both parties must submit their briefs according to the timeline and format specified in Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

Legal Issues Addressed

Appeal Bond Requirement

Application: The Defendants are required to post an appeal bond to proceed with their appeal following the grant of discretionary review.

Reasoning: The Defendants are required to submit an appeal bond of $250, either in cash or via a written undertaking with appropriate surety, as outlined in Appellate Rule 17(b).

Discretionary Review by Court

Application: The Court granted the Defendants' alternative petition for discretionary review following the dismissal of their appeal.

Reasoning: Additionally, the Defendants filed an alternative petition on the same date for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals' decision, which was also allowed by the Court on June 30, 2005.

Dismissal of Appeal for Lack of Substantial Constitutional Question

Application: The Court dismissed the Defendants' appeal due to the absence of a substantial constitutional question, as requested by the Plaintiff.

Reasoning: On June 30, 2005, the Court allowed the motion to dismiss the appeal.

Docketing and Submission of Briefs

Application: The case is docketed as of the certification date, and both parties must adhere to the specified timeline and format for submitting briefs.

Reasoning: The case is officially docketed as of the certification date, and both parties must submit their briefs according to the timeline and format specified in Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).