Legal Opinion

Dunkley v. Shoemate

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 7, 1998No. COA96-1080PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

This case involves plaintiff’s motion to remove the law firm of Patterson, Dilthey, Clay & Bryson as counsel for defendant Lee H. Shoemate. This Court earlier dismissed the denial of plaintiff’s motion as interlocutory. On appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court, the Court held that the appeal was not interlocutory because it affected a substantial right which plaintiff will lose if not reviewed before a final judgment is entered. But see Travco Hotels v. Piedmont Natural Gas Co., 332 N.C. 288, 420 S.E.2d 426 (1992) (holding as interlocutory an appeal from the denial of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re the Appeal From the Civil PenaltySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  2. Travco Hotels, Inc. v. PIEDMONT NAT. GAS CO., INC.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  3. Johnson v. Amethyst Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  4. Dunkley v. ShoemateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1997

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Dunkley v. ShoemateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API