Christopher v. BRUCE-TERMINIX COMPANY

216 S.E.2d 375, 26 N.C. App. 520, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2098
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedJuly 2, 1975
Docket7515SC205
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 216 S.E.2d 375 (Christopher v. BRUCE-TERMINIX COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Christopher v. BRUCE-TERMINIX COMPANY, 216 S.E.2d 375, 26 N.C. App. 520, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2098 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

Rule 5.4 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil, Procedure provides in part:

“.(b) .Judgment upon- multiple claims or involving -multiple parties. — When more-than one claim for relief is 'presented in ah action,; whether as a claim, counterclaim, crosscíainí, or third-party claim, or when multiple' parties are-:involved,, the court: may enter a. final Judgment .as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only if there is no just reason for delay' and' it is so determined in: the judgment'. Such judgment.-shall'then be subject to review by appeal or as'otherwise "provided by these rules or other statutes. In the . absence, of entry of such a final ‘judgment, any order or other form of decision," however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer- than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or., parties and shall not then be subject to review either by áppeal or otherwise except as expressly provided by these rules or /.other statutes. Similarly, in the.absence of entry of such a - final-judgment, any order or'other form of. decision is subject to revision .at-.any- timé before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties^”

The judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim against Bruce-Terminix adjudicates “the rights, and liabilities of fewer than all the parties” and* contains no determination that “there is no just reason for delay.” It therefore is not a-final judgment'.and is not appealable.. See Leasing, Inc. v. Dan-Cleve Corp., 25 N.C. *522 App. 18, 212 S.E. 2d 41 (1975) ; Arnold v. Howard, 24 N.C. App. 255, 210 S.E. 2d 492 (1974). Plaintiff’s appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges Martin and Clark concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pentecostal Pilgrims & Strangers Corp. v. Connor
688 S.E.2d 81 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
Wachovia Realty Investments v. Housing, Inc.
221 S.E.2d 381 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 S.E.2d 375, 26 N.C. App. 520, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-v-bruce-terminix-company-ncctapp-1975.