Jennewein v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF WILMINGTON
Jennewein v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF WILMINGTON
Opinion
The order from which both petitioners and respondents have attempted to appeal is interlocutory. An appeal does not lie from an interlocutory order unless it affects some substantial right of the appellant and will work an injury to him if not corrected before an appeal from the final judgment. Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co., 296 N.C. 486, 251 S.E. 2d 443 (1979); Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 57 S.E. 2d 377 (1950); Leak v. Covington, 95 N.C. 193 (1886); Auction Co. v. Myers, 40 N.C. App. 570, 253 S.E. 2d 362 (1979). The order in the present case remanded the case to the city council for hearing de novo. It did not affect a substantial right of either party which cannot be corrected upon appeal from final judgment without either party suffering injury in the meantime.
The attempted appeals are premature and are
Dismissed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- PAUL R. JENNEWEIN and Wipe, VIRGINIA N. JENNEWEIN, Petitioners v. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, BEN B. HALTERMAN, MAYOR, J. D. CAUSEY, JOSEPH DUNN, MARGARET F. FONVIELLE, RALPH W. ROPER, WILLIAM SCHWARTZ, and J. RUPERT BRYAN, COUNCILPERSONS, Respondents
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Appeal and Error 6.2 — application for special use permit — remand for hearing de novo — nonappealable order An order remanding the case to the Wilmington City Council for a hearing de novo upon petitioners' application for a special use permit was a nonappealable interlocutory order.