Legal Opinion

Looney v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 6, 1990No. 897SC668PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

We first address, ex mero motu, whether this appeal must be dismissed as premature. A preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order. Iredell Digestive Disease Clinic v. Petrozza, 92 N.C. App. 21, 373 S.E.2d 449, affirmed, 324 N.C. 327, 377 S.E.2d 750 (1989) (citing Pruitt v. Williams, 288 N.C. 368, 218 S.E.2d 348 (1975)). No appeal lies from an interlocutory order unless such order affects a substantial right of the appellant, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-277(a), 7A-27(d)(1), the enforcement of which will be “lost, prejudiced or . . . less than adequately protected by exception to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. J & B Slurry Seal Co. v. Mid-South Aviation, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  2. Pruitt v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  3. Iredell Digestive Disease Clinic v. PetrozzaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  4. Myers v. H. McBride Realty, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Stevens v. HenryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  2. Am. Air Filter Co. v. PriceNorth Carolina Business Court · 2017
  3. Bowman v. SparrowNorth Carolina Business Court · 2016
  4. Brewster v. Powell Bail Bonding, Inc.North Carolina Business Court · 2016
  5. Ennis-Flint, Inc. v. GreerNorth Carolina Business Court · 2019

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API