Petitions for Discretionary Review

Full title: PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jan 4, 1989

323 N.C. 705 (N.C. 1989)

323 N.C. 705

Opinion

377 S.E.2d 226 (N.C. 1989) 323 N.C. 705 NORTHAMPTON COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, Plaintiff v. Larry Donald BAILEY, Jr., and wife, Maxine Spence Bailey; Betty Gatlin, Unmarried; Claude M. Fennell and wife, Brenda D. Fennell; Thomas L. Redd and wife, Connie B. Redd; Jesse B. Outlaw and wife, Dessie B. Outlaw; William Slade and wife, Kathleen Slade; James M. Bush and wife, Dorothy W. Bush; Thomas David Tann and wife, Vernear O. Tann; Jesse Lee Eason and wife, Lily M. Eason; Lucius Cornell Slade, Unmarried; Whallon Holloman and wife, Sawyer Holly Holloman; James O. Buchanan, Trustee for Farmer's Home Administration, lienholder; Joseph J. Flythe, Trustee for the Federal Land Bank of Columbia, lienholder; Thurman E. Burnete, Trustee for Farmer's Home Administration lienholder; Joseph J. Flythe, Trustee for John M. Fields, lienholder, Defendants, and Manning P. Cooke, Agent, Robert Darrell Morris, John Southgate Vaughan, Phillip B. Parker and John D. Snipes, Jr., Intervenor-Defendants. No. 576A88. Supreme Court of North Carolina. January 4, 1989

       Charles J. Vaughan, Woodland, Baker, Jenkinss&sJones, Ahoskie, for defendants.

       Law Offices of Frank M. Wooten, Greenville, for plaintiff.

       George Thomas Davis, Jr., Swanquarter, for District # 7.

       Robert B. Broughton, Raleigh, for NC Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.

       William P. Mayo, Washington, for Drainage Districts.

       Daniel C. Oakley, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State of N.C.

        ORDER

       Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendants in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed as to attorneys' fee issue only; otherwise denied. By order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of January 1989."

       The Notice of Appeal as to constitutional question is:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of January 1989."

       Accordingly, briefs shall be limited to the issue which is the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals and the issue as to attorneys' fee allowed to be brought forward from the Petition for Discretionary Review. The Defendants' new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.

       Defendants shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.