In North Carolina appellate practice, it is often generally said that an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right is immediately appealable.  But as the Court of Appeals reiterated in an
Continue Reading An Interlocutory Ruling May Affect a Substantial Right Yet Not Be Immediately Appealable

The Appellate Rules Committee has updated its style–the Appellate Style Manual that is. The Style Manual provides practical examples and tips for those practicing in North Carolina’s state appellate courts. 
Continue Reading Update Your Style: Appellate Rules Committee Publishes Updated Style Manual and Guide to Appealability

Can a party “manufacture” appellate jurisdiction for an otherwise interlocutory appeal through the voluntary dismissal of remaining claims?  That question was generally answered in the negative by the Supreme Court
Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Allows Creation of Appellate Jurisdiction Through Voluntary Dismissal

Unlike in federal court, judges in North Carolina’s state courts often invite counsel for the prevailing party to draft a proposed order on the court’s ruling. Sometimes the judge will
Continue Reading Appellate Review of Trial Court Reasoning

The federal corollary to the oft-blogged about “substantial right doctrine” in the North Carolina appellate courts is the “collateral order doctrine.”  As is the case under North Carolina law, the
Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Explains the Scope of “Collateral Order Doctrine”

There is perhaps no truer aphorism of appellate jurisdiction than this: The substantial right doctrine is more easily stated than applied.  In light of the Court of Appeals’ opinion last
Continue Reading You Can Say That Again: The Substantial Right Doctrine Is More Easily Stated Than Applied

Those familiar with North Carolina appellate jurisprudence are well aware that what constitutes “a substantial right” for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction over an interlocutory order is an issue that


Continue Reading What Does the Supreme Court of North Carolina Consider To Be a “Substantial Right”?