Helms v. Griffin

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Helms v. Griffin

306 S.E.2d 530, 64 N.C. App. 189, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3224

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 20, 1983

DocketNo. 8220SC1068

StatusPublished

This text of 306 S.E.2d 530 (Helms v. Griffin) 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

Helms v. Griffin, 306 S.E.2d 530, 64 N.C. App. 189, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3224 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

The plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred when it denied their, motion for a preliminary injunction. We are not so persuaded.

However, the more important question before us is whether the order by the trial court is in fact appealable. An interlocutory order is immediately appealable only when it affects a substantial right of the appellant. Ball v. Ball, 55 N.C. App. 98, 284 S.E. 2d [191]*191555 (1981). See G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27(d). Since the sale was stayed pending appeal, we find that the order does not affect a substantial right of the plaintiff.

Moreover, in a case recently considered by the North Carolina Supreme Court in which a preliminary injunction had been denied at trial, the Court stated “in a case such as the one now under consideration, although involving a substantive right of the appealing party, where time is of the essence, the appellate process is not the procedural mechanism best suited for resolving the dispute. The parties would be better advised to seek a final determination on the merits at the earliest possible time.” A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure, 308 N.C. 393, 401, 302 S.E. 2d 754, 759 (1983). We agree. The order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is interlocutory since it does not finally dispose of the case and requires further action by the trial court. This appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges Wells and Eagles concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

The plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred when it denied their, motion for a preliminary injunction. We are not so persuaded.

However, the more important question before us is whether the order by the trial court is in fact appealable. An interlocutory order is immediately appealable only when it affects a substantial right of the appellant. Ball v. Ball, 55 N.C. App. 98, 284 S.E. 2d [191]*191555 (1981). See G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27(d). Since the sale was stayed pending appeal, we find that the order does not affect a substantial right of the plaintiff.

Moreover, in a case recently considered by the North Carolina Supreme Court in which a preliminary injunction had been denied at trial, the Court stated “in a case such as the one now under consideration, although involving a substantive right of the appealing party, where time is of the essence, the appellate process is not the procedural mechanism best suited for resolving the dispute. The parties would be better advised to seek a final determination on the merits at the earliest possible time.” A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure, 308 N.C. 393, 401, 302 S.E. 2d 754, 759 (1983). We agree. The order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is interlocutory since it does not finally dispose of the case and requires further action by the trial court. This appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges Wells and Eagles concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 S.E.2d 530, 64 N.C. App. 189, 1983 N.C. App. LEXIS 3224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helms-v-griffin-ncctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack