Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

368 N.C. 673

Dickson v. Rucho

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 11, 2016

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 2016-02-11

Cited by 6 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2016-02-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

¶2Plaintiff-Appellants’ Rule 31 Petition for Rehearing is denied as to the second and third issues. As to the remaining first issue, plaintiff-appellants’ petition is dismissed on procedural grounds. Plaintiff-appellants waived review of this argument by failing to raise it in their brief on remand. See N.C. R. App. P. 28(a) (“Issues not presented and discussed in a party’s brief are deemed abandoned.”); N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (“Issues not presented in a party’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated, will be taken as abandoned.”).

¶3This Court’s 18 December 2015 opinion is modified as follows: the sentence stating “Alabama’s Constitution does not contain a Whole County Provision” is deleted, and the words in the next sentence, “that state,” are replaced with the word, “Alabama.” Dickson v. Rucho, No. 201PA12-3, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 1281, at *34 (Dec. 18, 2015).

¶4By order of the Court in Conference, this 11th day of February, 2016.

s/Ervin, J.

¶5For the Court

¶6WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 11th day of February, 2016.

¶7CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER Clerk of the Supreme Court

¶8s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk

/368/nc/673 · .json · Public domain