Legal Opinion

DesMarais v. Dimmette

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 21, 1984No. 8326SC666PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WEBB, Judge.

The order denying the motion for change of venue does not dispose of the case. It is an interlocutory order and the first question we face is whether the appeal should be dismissed as premature. See Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 251 S.E. 2d 443 (1979). Under G.S. 1-277, an interlocutory order which will work injury if not corrected before final judgment is ap- pealable. See Highway Commission v. Nuckles, 271 N.C. 1, 155 S.E. 2d 772 (1967). We hold that an erroneous order denying a party the right to have the case heard in the proper court would work an injury to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Tridyn Industries, Inc. v. American Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  2. North Carolina State Highway Commission v. NucklesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. Coats v. Sampson County Memorial Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. Klass v. HayesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  5. Pushman v. . DameronSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Thompson v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  2. Schwarz v. St. Jude Med., Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017
  3. Snow v. YatesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  4. Hawley v. HobgoodCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  5. Caldwell v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010

6 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