Community Bank v. Whitley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Community Bank v. Whitley

449 S.E.2d 226, 116 N.C. App. 731, 1994 N.C. App. LEXIS 1119

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 1, 1994

Docket9317SC1215

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 449 S.E.2d 226 (Community Bank v. Whitley) 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

Community Bank v. Whitley, 449 S.E.2d 226, 116 N.C. App. 731, 1994 N.C. App. LEXIS 1119 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment. Typically, “the denial of a motion for summary judgment is a nonap-pealable interlocutory order.” Northwestern Financial Group v. County of Gaston, 110 N.C. App. 531, 535, 430 S.E.2d 689, 692, disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 621, 435 S.E.2d 337 (1993). Despite this general rule, this Court will address the merits of such an appeal if “a substantial right of one of the parties would be lost if the appeal were not heard prior to the final judgment.” Id. Our Supreme Court has stated that “the denial of a motion for summary judgment based on the defense of res judicata may affect a substantial right.” Bockweg v. Anderson, 333 N.C. 486, 491, 428 S.E.2d 157, 161 (1993) (italics omitted). A substantial right is likely to be affected where a possibility of inconsistent verdicts exists if the case proceeds to trial, but the facts of this case would not lead to such an outcome. Further, we do not believe these facts present a compelling case for premature review. Accordingly, plaintiffs appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.

Dismissed.

Panel consisting of: Chief Judge Arnold, Judges Cozort and Lewis.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment. Typically, “the denial of a motion for summary judgment is a nonap-pealable interlocutory order.” Northwestern Financial Group v. County of Gaston, 110 N.C. App. 531, 535, 430 S.E.2d 689, 692, disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 621, 435 S.E.2d 337 (1993). Despite this general rule, this Court will address the merits of such an appeal if “a substantial right of one of the parties would be lost if the appeal were not heard prior to the final judgment.” Id. Our Supreme Court has stated that “the denial of a motion for summary judgment based on the defense of res judicata may affect a substantial right.” Bockweg v. Anderson, 333 N.C. 486, 491, 428 S.E.2d 157, 161 (1993) (italics omitted). A substantial right is likely to be affected where a possibility of inconsistent verdicts exists if the case proceeds to trial, but the facts of this case would not lead to such an outcome. Further, we do not believe these facts present a compelling case for premature review. Accordingly, plaintiffs appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.

Dismissed.

Panel consisting of: Chief Judge Arnold, Judges Cozort and Lewis.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 S.E.2d 226, 116 N.C. App. 731, 1994 N.C. App. LEXIS 1119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/community-bank-v-whitley-ncctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack