The North Carolina Court of Appeals has recently addressed the availability of immunity doctrines to state Magistrates. In Wynn v. Frederick and Great American Insurance Company, the Court addressed
Continue Reading Officials, Immunities, and Statutes, Oh My!
A while back I wrote about the collateral order doctrine as discussed by the Fourth Circuit in Williams v. Strickland. (See prior blog post here). Williams involved an
Continue Reading The Mandate Rule and another Thinly-Sliced Qualified Immunity Opinion from the Fourth Circuit
On Tuesday, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued its latest batch of opinions. An opinion that caught my eye represents a trend in the Court of Appeals of collapsing
Continue Reading Interlocutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Should The Courts Analyze The Merits First?
Tuesday’s batch of opinions from the Court of Appeals contained a smorgasbord of jurisdictional issues pertaining to interlocutory appeals. In no particular order:
Department of Transportation v. Riddle
This condemnation
Continue Reading A Jurisdictional Jamboree (including an RPR sighting!)
Almost two years ago, my colleague Matt Leerberg wrote about the Court of Appeals’ decision in Can Am South, LLC v. North Carolina and the potential implications of that decision:
Continue Reading What’s in a Name? Perhaps the Right to an Immediate Appeal
Last summer in Duncan v. Duncan, the Supreme Court of North Carolina issued a bright-line rule explaining that a pending attorneys’ fees motion does not bar an appeal of
Continue Reading Appealing an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs before the Court Tallies the Charges
Readers of our blog may be interested in a few nuggets concerning interlocutory appeals that appeared in the slate of opinions that the North Carolina Court of Appeals published on
Continue Reading Interlocutory Appeals: Unique Considerations in Criminal Cases Involving the Suppression of Evidence and in Cases Involving Sovereign Immunity
When the State argues that you can’t sue it because it enjoys sovereign immunity, is it saying that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over claims against a
Continue Reading Mind Your (b)s and qs