Legal Opinion

Peeler v. Peeler

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 1, 1970No. 7014DC130PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMallaRD, C.J.

Plaintiff appellee contends that the appeal should be dismissed because it is from an interlocutory decree and is therefore premature. We do not agree. It is provided by the statute that an “appeal lies of right directly to the Court of Appeals” from any interlocutory order of a superior court or district court in a civil action which affects a substantial right. G.S. 7A-27(d). We hold that an order requiring payment of alimony pendente lite and attorney fees affects a substantial right from which an appeal lies as a matter of right. See also Kearns v. Kearns, 6 N.C. App. 319, 170 S.E. 2d 132…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Sayland Ex Rel. McLendon v. SaylandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  3. Schloss v. SchlossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  4. Mercer v. MercerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  5. Deal v. DealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  2. Moose v. Nissan of Statesville, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  3. Sprinkle v. SprinkleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
  4. Stephenson v. StephensonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Berger v. BergerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

9 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