Fishel v. Grifton United Methodist Church

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Fishel v. Grifton United Methodist Church

185 S.E.2d 322, 13 N.C. App. 238, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1211

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 15, 1971

DocketNo. 713SC533

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 S.E.2d 322 (Fishel v. Grifton United Methodist Church) 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

Fishel v. Grifton United Methodist Church, 185 S.E.2d 322, 13 N.C. App. 238, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1211 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

The parties do not raise nor do we decide the question of whether Judge May’s interlocutory order was one from which appeal lies as a matter of right under G.S. 7A-27. We treat defendant’s. appeal as a petition for certiorari which is allowed. The pleadings in this case were closed prior to 1 January 1970, the effective date of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant had the right to trial by jury before the effective date of Rule 38. In fact two juries have been impaneled to try the case since the effective date of Rule 38. The esteemed trial judge erred in entering the order from which defendant appeals and the same is hereby reversed.

Reversed.

Judges Brock and Britt concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

The parties do not raise nor do we decide the question of whether Judge May’s interlocutory order was one from which appeal lies as a matter of right under G.S. 7A-27. We treat defendant’s. appeal as a petition for certiorari which is allowed. The pleadings in this case were closed prior to 1 January 1970, the effective date of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant had the right to trial by jury before the effective date of Rule 38. In fact two juries have been impaneled to try the case since the effective date of Rule 38. The esteemed trial judge erred in entering the order from which defendant appeals and the same is hereby reversed.

Reversed.

Judges Brock and Britt concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E.2d 322, 13 N.C. App. 238, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fishel-v-grifton-united-methodist-church-ncctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack