Ford v. Mann
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
STEELMAN, Judge.
Where the trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims as to only the Euliss defendants and struck plaintiffs’ notice of lis pendens only as to the Euliss defendants’ property, the order is interlocutory. Since plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the order affected a substantial right, this appeal must be dismissed.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On 26 March 2008, plaintiffs filed a complaint against a number of defendants, which included defendants Euliss, Inc., Tar Heel Land Group, LLC, SunTrust Bank, and VantageSouth Bank (Euliss defendants). This appeal pertains only to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Veazey v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint VentureCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Veazey v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Frost v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
- Parrish v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hamilton v. MORTGAGE INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
- Harbour Point Homeowners'assoc., Inc. Ex Rel. Bd. of Dir. v. Djf EnterprisesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
- Dep't of Transp. v. Bloomsbury Estates, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019
- Sullivan v. Pender Cty.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
- Sullivan v. Pender Cty.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022