Quantcast

Tag Archives: interlocutory

Civil Practice – Appeals – Interlocutory – No Trial Court Certification – Domestic Relations – Alimony – Attorney’s Fees (access required)

Duncan v. Duncan The trial court has ruled that the parties’ 1989 Cherokee wedding was valid and that the defendant-husband must pay the plaintiff-wife alimony; however, the court has not yet ruled on the wife’s request for attorney’s fees, and the trial court did not certify its rulings for immediate appeal.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Appeals – Interlocutory – Denial of Motion to Dismiss — Failure to Join a Necessary Party – Speculation (access required)

Builders Mutual Ins. Co. v. Meeting Street Builders, LLC In an insurer’s declaratory judgment action stemming from a South Carolina lawsuit by a homeowners’ association (HOA) against the companies that built the HOA members’ townhomes, the denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party – the HOA – is an interlocutory order.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Appeals – Interlocutory – Res Judicata – Texas & Kentucky Lawsuits – Breach of Contract – Covenant Not to Compete (access required)

Heritage Operating, L.P. v. N.C. Propane Exchange, LLC Even though plaintiff has filed suit in other states against some of the same individual defendants alleging breach of the same covenant not to compete, each action involves the formation, financing, and operation of a different company that does business solely in the state in which the action was brought. Whether the parties’ non-competition agreements were breached by the formation of each company depends on the factual circumstances in each case. Similarly, whether the non-competition agreements were breached by the financing and/or operation of each company depends on the specific factual circumstances in each case.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Appeals – Interlocutory – Tort/Negligence – Alienation of Affections & Criminal Conversation (access required)

Filipowski v. Oliver Defendant appeals the denial of her motion to dismiss. Although the trial court’s order is interlocutory, defendant argues only that the denial of her motion subjects her to the possibility of a lengthy and expensive trial. Avoidance of the time and expense of a trial is not a substantial right justifying immediate appellate review of an interlocutory order.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Appeals – Interlocutory – Discovery Order – Constitutional – Fifth Amendment Privilege (access required)

Fields v. McMahan In her memorandum opposing defendant’s motion to compel discovery, plaintiff forecasted the assertion of her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the event the trial court allowed defendant’s motion. The trial court granted the motion to compel discovery; however, the trial court did not have an opportunity to rule on the self-incrimination issue before plaintiff appealed the order granting defendant’s motion to compel. Plaintiff asserts the same privilege on appeal.

Read More »

Municipal – Ultra Vires Action – Subdivision Ordinance – Schools & School Boards – School Funding – Developer & Builder Fees – Civil Practice – Appeals – Interlocutory – Mootness – Standing – Statute of Limitations – Constitutional – Due Process – Equal Protection (access required)

Amward Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Our Court of Appeals held that the defendant-town was not responsible for setting up or funding schools, and it lacked statutory authority to charge developers and/or builders a fee designed to ensure adequate funding for area schools. With Justice Jackson not participating, the remaining members of the court are equally divided, with three members voting to reverse and three members voting to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Discovery – Attorney-Client Privilege – Blanket Objection – First Impression – Appeals – Interlocutory (access required)

K2 Asia Ventures v. Trota When responding to a discovery request, a blanket objection based on attorney-client privilege or work product immunity to all of the opposing parties’ discovery requests is inadequate to accomplish its intended purpose and does not establish a substantial right to an immediate appeal. The Philippine defendants’ appeal is dismissed. The trial court’s order compelling discovery from the Krispy Kreme Doughnut (KKD) defendants is affirmed.

Read More »