Legal Opinion

Kirkman v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 1, 1990No. 893SC407PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

Initially, we note that the trial court ordered a bifurcated trial because there were numerous issues in controversy. There still remain several unresolved issues of law and fact that were raised by the pleadings. After the parties agreed and stipulated that the issue raised by the Marketable Title Act was most significant, the trial judge ordered a separate trial on the issue involving the Marketable Title Act. “ ‘Pursuant to G.S. section 1-277 and G.S. section 7A-27, no appeal lies to an appellate court from an interlocutory order or ruling of a trial judge unless such order…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. CreasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  2. Heath v. TurnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Pigott v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Wilcox v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  5. Boehm v. North Carolina Board of Podiatry ExaminersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kirkman v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Kirkman v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API