Legal Opinion

DKH CORP. v. Rankin-Patterson Oil Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 9, 1998No. 353PA97PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WEBB, Justice.

The order of the superior court granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment did not dispose of all the claims in the case, making it interlocutory. Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950). This case brings to the Court a question as to the effect of N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) on an otherwise interlocutory appeal. This rule was adopted by the General Assembly pur suant to its power under Article IV, Section 12(2) of the Constitution of North Carolina, which provides that the General Assembly shall prescribe the appellate jurisdiction of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Veazey v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. Newton v. Standard Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. Oestreicher v. American National Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  4. Tridyn Industries, Inc. v. American Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Sharpe v. WorlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
  2. First Atlantic Management, Corp. v. Dunlea Realty, Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
  3. Eastover Ridge, L.L.C v. Metric Constructors, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  4. Eastway Wrecker Service, Inc. v. City of CharlotteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  5. Hoke County Board of Education v. StateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009

38 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