Legal Opinion
Hudspeth v. Bunzey
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided February 7, 1978No. 7726SC169PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
We first consider the appellee’s argument that appellants’ appeal from the denial of a motion to amend the pleadings is premature. Appellee correctly points out that the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to amend the pleadings is an interlocutory order. G.S. 7A-27(d) provides for appeals from interlocutory orders:
“From any interlocutory order or judgment of a superior court or district court in a civil action or proceeding which(1) Affects a substantial right, or(2) In effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which appeal might be taken, or(3)…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Markham v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
- Girard Trust Bank v. EastonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
- Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Ancient Masons v. Most Worshipful National Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Scottish Rite Masons of the WorldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
3Cited by20 opinions
- Stetser v. Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- Hoots v. PryorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
- Gladstein v. South Square AssociatesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- United Leasing Corp. v. MillerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- Carolina Garage, Inc. v. HolstonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.