Kirkman v. N.C. Dep't of Commerce

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Kirkman v. N.C. Dep't of Commerce

788 S.E.2d 681, 2016 WL 2865087, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 559

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 17, 2016

DocketNo. COA 15–1332.

StatusPublished

This text of 788 S.E.2d 681 (Kirkman v. N.C. Dep't of Commerce) 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

Kirkman v. N.C. Dep't of Commerce, 788 S.E.2d 681, 2016 WL 2865087, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 559 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

HUNTER, JR., ROBERT N., Judge.

Generally, "the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order from which there may not be an immediate appeal ." Multiple Claimants v. N.C. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 176 N.C.App. 278, 282, 626 S.E.2d 666, 669 (2006). N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-277(b) provides for immediate appeal from an adverse ruling as to the jurisdiction of the trial court, but the statute does not allow appellants to challenge sufficiency of process and service. Howard v. Ocean Trail Convalescent Ctr., 68 N.C.App. 494, 496, 315 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1984) (citing Love v. Moore, 305 N.C. 575, 291 S.E.2d 141 (1982) ). Here, Respondent appeals from an order denying Respondent's motion to dismiss, and concluding service of process was proper. We dismiss Respondent's appeal as interlocutory.

DISMISSED.

Judges CALABRIA and TYSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

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

HUNTER, JR., ROBERT N., Judge.

Generally, "the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order from which there may not be an immediate appeal ." Multiple Claimants v. N.C. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 176 N.C.App. 278, 282, 626 S.E.2d 666, 669 (2006). N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-277(b) provides for immediate appeal from an adverse ruling as to the jurisdiction of the trial court, but the statute does not allow appellants to challenge sufficiency of process and service. Howard v. Ocean Trail Convalescent Ctr., 68 N.C.App. 494, 496, 315 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1984) (citing Love v. Moore, 305 N.C. 575, 291 S.E.2d 141 (1982) ). Here, Respondent appeals from an order denying Respondent's motion to dismiss, and concluding service of process was proper. We dismiss Respondent's appeal as interlocutory.

DISMISSED.

Judges CALABRIA and TYSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

788 S.E.2d 681, 2016 WL 2865087, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirkman-v-nc-dept-of-commerce-ncctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack