Radford v. Norris
1985.NC.41741 74 N.C. APP. 87; 327 S.E.2D 620
-
- 0,99 €
-
- 0,99 €
Description de l’éditeur
Initially, we note that plaintiffs have appealed from an interlocutory order. Judge Allens order dismisses plaintiffs action against Cessna, but does not dispose of plaintiffs claims against Burlington Aviation, nor does the order contain a certification that "there is no just reason for delay" as required by G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) for entry of a final judgment affecting fewer than all of the claims or parties. As a general rule, no appeal lies from an interlocutory order. Auction Co. v. Myers, 40 N.C. App. 570, 253 S.E.2d 362 (1979). However, G.S. §§ 1-277 and 7A-27(d) allow an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order which affects