Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, No. 9310SC431

Docket NºNo. 9310SC431
Citation444 S.E.2d 252, 115 N.C.App. 377
Case DateJune 21, 1994
CourtCourt of Appeal of North Carolina (US)

Page 252

444 S.E.2d 252
115 N.C.App. 377
Lois Upchurch JEFFREYS and Joseph Randolph Jeffreys, Plaintiffs,
v.
RALEIGH OAKS JOINT VENTURE, Raleigh Oaks Shopping Center,
Inc., a Tennessee Corporation Seymour Vogel, Syson Group,
Inc., W.R. Henderson & Associates, Inc., a North Carolina
Corporation, W.R. Henderson, Vernon Brown, Raleigh Oaks
Limited, a North Carolina Partnership, and Fleet National
Bank, Defendants.
No. 9310SC431.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
June 21, 1994.

McMillan, Kimzey & Smith by James M. Kimzey and Katherine E. Jean, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellees.

Howard, From, Stallings & Hutson, P.A. by John N. Hutson, Jr., Raleigh, for defendants-appellant.

ORR, Judge.

The sole issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs' summary judgment motion as to ROJV's counterclaims[115 N.C.App. 379] against plaintiffs. We need not address this issue, however, as this appeal is interlocutory and ROJV has failed to show this Court that a substantial right of ROJV's will be affected if ROJV is not given the right of immediate appeal from this order.

ROJV is appealing from the grant of partial summary judgment dismissing its counterclaims against plaintiffs. "A grant of partial summary judgment, because it does not completely dispose of the case, is an interlocutory order from which there is ordinarily no right of appeal." Liggett Group, Inc. v. Sunas, 113 N.C.App. 19, 23, 437 S.E.2d 674, 677 (1993). "The reason for this rule is to prevent fragmentary, premature and unnecessary appeals by permitting the trial court to bring the case to final judgment before it is presented to the appellate courts." Fraser v. Di Santi, 75 N.C.App. 654, 655, 331 S.E.2d 217, 218, disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 183, 337 S.E.2d 856 (1985).

"Nonetheless, in two instances a party is permitted to appeal interlocutory orders...." Liggett Group Inc., 113 N.C.App. at 23, 437 S.E.2d at 677 (emphasis by underline added). First, a party is permitted to appeal from an interlocutory order when the trial court enters "a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties" and the trial court certifies in the judgment that there is no just reason to delay the appeal. N.C.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Liggett Group Inc., 113 N.C.App. at 23, 437 S.E.2d at 677. Second, a party is permitted to appeal from an interlocutory order when "the order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be jeopardized absent a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
345 practice notes
  • Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., No. COA17-74
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • November 21, 2017
    ...which would be jeopardized absent a review prior to a final determination on the merits." Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture , 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994). NCDOT must also bearthe burden of demonstrating that the order from which [it] seeks to appeal is appealable......
  • Gilbert v. North Carolina State Bar, No. 41PA07.
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • March 20, 2009
    ...to be judicially determined between them in the trial court." (citations omitted)); see also Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C.App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994) ("It is not the duty of this Court to construct arguments for or find support for appellant's right to appea......
  • Bynum v. Wilson Cnty., No. COA12–779.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • June 18, 2013
    ...of determining whether a particular trial court order does, in fact, affect a substantial right. Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C.App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994) (stating that “[i]t is not the duty of this Court to construct arguments for or find support for appella......
  • Moore v. Evans, No. COA95-862
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • October 15, 1996
    ...court to bring the case to final judgment before it is presented to the appellate courts.' " Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C.App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994). "The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is generally not immediately appea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
343 cases
  • Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., No. COA17-74
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • November 21, 2017
    ...which would be jeopardized absent a review prior to a final determination on the merits." Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture , 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994). NCDOT must also bearthe burden of demonstrating that the order from which [it] seeks to appeal is appealable......
  • Gilbert v. North Carolina State Bar, No. 41PA07.
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • March 20, 2009
    ...to be judicially determined between them in the trial court." (citations omitted)); see also Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C.App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994) ("It is not the duty of this Court to construct arguments for or find support for appellant's right to appea......
  • Bynum v. Wilson Cnty., No. COA12–779.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • June 18, 2013
    ...of determining whether a particular trial court order does, in fact, affect a substantial right. Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C.App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994) (stating that “[i]t is not the duty of this Court to construct arguments for or find support for appella......
  • Moore v. Evans, No. COA95-862
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • October 15, 1996
    ...court to bring the case to final judgment before it is presented to the appellate courts.' " Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C.App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994). "The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is generally not immediately appea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT