Fliehr v. Fliehr
| Decision Date | 16 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 8126DC570,8126DC570 |
| Citation | Fliehr v. Fliehr, 289 S.E.2d 105, 56 N.C.App. 465 (N.C. App. 1982) |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Leslie Goodman FLIEHR v. Richard M. FLIEHR. |
Michael S. Shulimson, Charlotte, and Marvin Schiller, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellee.
Mraz & Michael by Mark A. Michael, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.
We hold that this appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory according to this Court's holding in Stephenson v. Stephenson, --- N.C.App. ---, 285 S.E.2d 287 (1981).
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
6 cases
-
Wells v. Wells
...N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b)(1990), and therefore interlocutory and not subject to immediate appeal, see Fliehr v. Fliehr, 56 N.C.App. 465, 466, 289 S.E.2d 105, 106 (1982)(order for child support "entered in conjunction with orders awarding alimony pendente lite" not appealable "until entry ......
-
Mayer v. Mayer
...of Doris Mayer's divorce. Doris Mayer appeals. II Appealability Initially, both parties direct our attention to Fliehr v. Fliehr, 56 N.C.App. 465, 289 S.E.2d 105 (1982) and Stephenson v. Stephenson, 55 N.C.App. 250, 285 S.E.2d 281 (1981), which hold that orders for alimony pendente lite are......
-
Peters v. Peters
...not subject to immediate appellate review even when the child support order is not designated “ pendente lite.” Fliehr v. Fliehr, 56 N.C.App. 465, 466, 289 S.E.2d 105, 106 (1982) (citing the delay rationale articulated in Stephenson ). Relying on Stephenson and other similar cases, we state......
-
Berger v. Berger
...Stephenson case has become precedent in a host of recent decisions dismissing appeals from pendente lite awards. In Fliehr v. Fliehr, 56 N.C.App. 465, 289 S.E.2d 105 (1982), we expanded the Stephenson rule to prohibit an appeal from an order for child support, not designated pendente lite, ......
Get Started for Free