Gunkel v. Kimbrell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Gunkel v. Kimbrell, 225 S.E.2d 127 (1976)
29 N.C. App. 586; 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2573
Hedrick, Morris, Arnold

Gunkel v. Kimbrell

Opinion

HEDRICK, Judge.

G.S. 1-277 in pertinent part provides:

“(a) An appeal may be taken from every judicial order or determination of a judge of a superior or district court, upon or involving a matter of law or legal inference, *589 whether made in or out of session, which affects a substantial right claimed in any action or proceeding; or which in effect determines the action, and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken; or discontinues the action, or grants or refuses a new trial.”

An order granting or refusing a preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order governed by the requirements of G.S. 1-277. Pruitt v. Williams, 288 N.C. 368, 218 S.E. 2d 348 (1975).

Plaintiffs have, not shown that the order denying the preliminary injunction will deprive them of a substantial right if not corrected before a final hearing on plaintiffs’ complaint. Accordingly, the appeal from the order denying the preliminary injunction is dismissed. See Pruitt v. Williams, supra. It follows that the appeal from the order denying plaintiffs’ 52(b) motion must also be dismissed under G.S. 1-277.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Morris and Arnold concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
MARGUERITE GUNKEL and the SUN JOURNAL, INC. v. CHARLES H. KIMBRELL, Mayor; BEN B. HURST, TOM I. DAVIS, ELLA J. BENGEL, TIMOTHY A. MONTGOMERY and GRAY INGRAM, Individually and as Members of the Board of Aldermen of the City of New Bern, a Municipal Corporation; SAMUEL P. BRANCH, WILLIAM M. BRYAN, JOHN G. DUNN, HARRY L. VATZ and CLIFTON L. McCOTTER, Individually and as Members of the Redevelopment Commission of the City of New Bern; And the REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW BERN
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published