Clark v. Clark

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Clark v. Clark

255 S.E.2d 568, 42 N.C. App. 84, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2755

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 19, 1979

Docket7818DC864

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 S.E.2d 568 (Clark v. Clark) 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

Clark v. Clark, 255 S.E.2d 568, 42 N.C. App. 84, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2755 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MITCHELL, Judge.

The effect of both G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27(d) is to provide that no appeal will lie to an appellate court from an interlocutory order or ruling of a trial court unless such order or ruling deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he will lose if the order or ruling is not reviewed before final judgment. Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978); Wood v. City of Fayetteville, 35 N.C. App. 738, 242 S.E. 2d 640, rev. denied, 295 N.C. 264, 245 S.E. 2d 781 (1978). The order of the trial court denying the motion of the defendant, Murray M. Clark, Jr., does not determine or discontinue the action or affect a substantial right. See Trust Co. v. Motors, Inc., 13 N.C. App. 632, 186 S.E. 2d 675 (1972). The assignments and contentions the defendant, Murray M. Clark, Jr., seeks to present here by interlocutory appeal will not be lost if the order from which he has appealed is not reviewed before an appeal from final judgment. The trial court has rendered no order or judgment from which an interlocutory appeal may properly be taken and we order the

*86 Appeal dismissed.

Judges PARKER and MARTIN (Harry C.) concur.

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

MITCHELL, Judge.

The effect of both G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27(d) is to provide that no appeal will lie to an appellate court from an interlocutory order or ruling of a trial court unless such order or ruling deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he will lose if the order or ruling is not reviewed before final judgment. Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978); Wood v. City of Fayetteville, 35 N.C. App. 738, 242 S.E. 2d 640, rev. denied, 295 N.C. 264, 245 S.E. 2d 781 (1978). The order of the trial court denying the motion of the defendant, Murray M. Clark, Jr., does not determine or discontinue the action or affect a substantial right. See Trust Co. v. Motors, Inc., 13 N.C. App. 632, 186 S.E. 2d 675 (1972). The assignments and contentions the defendant, Murray M. Clark, Jr., seeks to present here by interlocutory appeal will not be lost if the order from which he has appealed is not reviewed before an appeal from final judgment. The trial court has rendered no order or judgment from which an interlocutory appeal may properly be taken and we order the

*86 Appeal dismissed.

Judges PARKER and MARTIN (Harry C.) concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 S.E.2d 568, 42 N.C. App. 84, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-clark-ncctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack