ASHEVILLE JET, INC. v. City of Asheville
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1ConcurrenceJackson, Judge
Although I concur with the result reached by the majority opinion, I write separately to emphasize that, because we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory, we should not discuss in-depth the merits of the federal preemption issue.
Our case law suggests that the purpose of dismissing interlocutory appeals is to prevent premature discussions of different aspects of a case through repeated, effectively meaningless, appeals. See, e.g., Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 363, 57 S.E.2d 377, 382 (1950) (“There is no more effective way to procrastinate-the administration of justice than that of bringing…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Veazey v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Poore v. . PooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Kirkman v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- BLUE RIDGE SPORTCYCLE CO., INC. v. SchroaderCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- State v. RackleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009