Jennewein v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF WILMINGTON
PAUL R. JENNEWEIN and Wipe, VIRGINIA N. JENNEWEIN, Petitioners v. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, BEN B. HALTERMAN, MAYOR, J. D. CAUSEY, JOSEPH DUNN, MARGARET F. FONVIELLE, RALPH W. ROPER, WILLIAM SCHWARTZ, and J. RUPERT BRYAN, COUNCILPERSONS, Respondents
Syllabus
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
PARKER, Judge.
The order from which both petitioners and respondents have attempted to appeal is interlocutory. An appeal does not lie from an interlocutory order unless it affects some substantial right of the appellant and will work an injury to him if not corrected before an appeal from the final judgment.
Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486 , 251 S.E. 2d 443 (1979);
Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357 , 57 S.E. 2d 377 (1950);
Leak v. Covington, 95 N.C. 193 (1886);
Auction Co. v. Myers, 40 N.C. App. 570 , 253 S.E. 2d 362 (1979). The order in the present case remanded the case to the city council for hearing de novo. It did not affect a substantial right of either party which cannot be corrected upon appeal from final judgment without either party suffering injury in the meantime.
The attempted appeals are premature and are Dismissed.
Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge WELLS concur.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 6 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(appeal of superior court’s remand to a city council for a de novo hearing dismissed as interlocutory)
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- High Rock Lake Partners, LLC v. North Carolina Department of Transportation
- High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque
- Akers v. City of Mount Airy
- Coates v. Durham Cty.
- Heritage Pointe Builders, Inc. v. North Carolina Licensing Board of General Contractors
- HIGH BIDGE HINKLE JT. VENT. v. Albuquerque
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.