201 N.C. App. 714 - Ford v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Veazey v. City of Durham · 115 N.C. App. 377 - Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture · Veazey v. City of Durham · Frost v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. · Parrish v. . R. R.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party is not permitted to appeal an interlocutory order because they believe that the ruling places them at a tactical disadvantage[.] ... To be appealable, the appellant must be able to clearly articulate why the order affects a substantial right[.] . . . The reason for this rule was set forth by Justice Ervin in Veazey v. Durham: ‘There is no more effective way to procrastinate the administration of justice than that of bringing cases to an appellate court piecemeal through . . . successive appeals from intermediate orders. The rules regulating appeals ... forestall the useless delay inseparable from unlimited fragmentary appeals[.]’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A]n order [is not] appealable because all the parties wish to have it appealed. The parties cannot by consent confer jurisdiction of a non-appealable interlocutory order upon the appellate courts. See Wiggins v. Pyramid Life Insurance Co. , 3 N.C. App. 476 , 478, 165 S.E.2d 54 , 56 (1969) ("Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent where it does not otherwise exist ...." (citation omitted)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is not the duty of this Court to construct arguments for or find support for appellant’s right to appeal from an interlocutory order; instead, the appellant has the burden of showing this Court that the order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be jeopardized absent a review prior to a final determination on the merits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.