N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1

In a Rule 60(b) proceeding, the court has equitable discretion to award costs, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Foreclosure of a Lien by Ridgeloch Homeowners Ass'n v. McNeill · filed 2007-04-03Rule 60(b)

This Court has described Rule 60(b) “as a grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a particular case.” ... Long ago, our Supreme Court stated when the action “has been in the nature of an equitable proceeding, . . . the adjudication of the costs is in the discretion of the court.” ... Here, Harris has failed to show the trial court’s decision to award costs to Walker was “manifestly unsupported by reason.”

Rule 60(b)(6) allows a defendant to seek modification or removal of a civil satellite-based monitoring order.

State v. Carter · filed 2022-04-19Rule 60(b)(6)

The trial court also retains authority to modify its own civil judgments. See Hilton, ¶ 34 (“Since the SBM program is civil in nature, the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure govern. As such, a defendant may also seek removal of SBM[.]” (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(6) (2019)).

Rule 60(b)(4) permits relief from a void judgment, but a clerical error does not make an order void when the court had jurisdiction.

Jabari v. Jabari · filed 2022-06-07Rule 60(b)(4)

The clerical nature of any error defeats Defendant’s challenge because, due to the fact he only appealed the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion rather than the underlying renewal order, he must show any error is so egregious it renders the renewal order void.

Rule 37(c)(iii) measures reasonable grounds for refusing an admission based on what the party knew when it answered the request.

Williams v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources · filed 2004-09-07Rule 37(c)(iii)

Under Rule 37(c), the court’s inquiry must focus on what the agency knew at the time they answered the request for admissions.

Rule 54(b) allows certification of a final judgment resolving fewer than all claims or parties when the trial court finds no just reason to delay an appeal.

North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Stagecoach Village · filed 2004-09-07Rule 54(b)

“First, the trial court may certify that there is no just reason to delay the appeal after it enters a final judgment as to fewer than all of the claims or parties in an action.” ... Such is not the case here.

Rule 54(b) certification is required to rely on that rule for appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order.

Byrd v. Avco Corp. · filed 2026-03-20(b)

However, because the trial court did not certify its order, Avco cannot rely on Rule 54(b) for appellate jurisdiction.

Rule 68 permits attorney’s fees as costs only when another rule or statute authorizes them.

Lincoln v. Bueche · filed 2004-09-07Rule 68

There is no provision in Rule 68 authorizing the trial courts to award attorneys fees. Attorneys fees can be awarded in the context of Rule 68 where there exists authorization to tax them as costs under some other Rule or statute.

A Rule 37 attorney’s fee award requires evidence supporting a finding of the customary fee for comparable work.

Porters Neck Ltd., LLC v. Porters Neck Cty. Club · filed 2021-03-02Rule 37(b)(2)

Plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence of a comparable fee rate to the trial court to show “the customary fee for like work” by others in the legal market to support a finding on that point, and to award attorney’s fees. The trial court erred by making a finding with respect to “the customary fee for like work” absent evidence to support such a finding.

Rule 11 permits recovery of costs and attorney's fees incurred defending against frivolous defenses.

Watts v. N.C. D.E.N.R. · filed 2005-10-03Rule 11

As a result of defendants' conduct, plaintiff was required to incur additional expenses associated with retaining experts to defend against defendants' non-justiciable issues of law or fact. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs and attorneys' fees he incurred in prosecuting his claims and defending against defendants' frivilous defenses, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1A-1 , Rule 11, 6-13, 6-14, 6-20, 6-21.5, 7A-305(d)(3), 143-291, 143.291.1, and 143.291.2.

Rule 7(b)(1) requires a motion to state its grounds with particularity and identify the relief sought; omitting the rule number does not make the motion defective when the parties have adequate notice.

Currituck Associates—Residential Partnership v. Hollowell · filed 2004-09-07Rule 7(b)(1)

However, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 7(b)(1) (2003) requires only that motions to the trial court "state with particularity the grounds therefor, and ... set forth the relief or order sought." Thus, since "[t]he directive of [Rule 6] has the salutory purpose of ensuring that the [trial] court and the parties are aware of the grounds upon which the movant is relying," a motion that does not comply with Rule 6 is not defective if the parties are given adequate notice.

A Rule 59 motion qualifies when it states a listed ground for relief and alleges specific facts supporting that ground.

In re Estate of Quattlebaum · filed 2018-09-04Rule 59(a)

Petitioner alleged specific and particularized facts in each of these subsections that she contended supported her Rule 59 motion. Consequently, Petitioner's motion complied with the requirements of Rule 59.

Rule 7(b) requires a motion to state its grounds; a letter seeking a stay without identifying a legal basis does not comply.

Waly v. Alkamary · filed 2021-08-17Rule 7(b)(1)

The letter was not filed stamped or served on Father’s counsel prior to the hearing, nor did it identify any legal basis for the trial court to stay its proceedings. Thus, Mother’s purported motion did not comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

On review of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true and reviews the complaint’s legal sufficiency de novo.

Okuma America Corp. v. Bowers · filed 2007-01-02Rule 12(b)(6)

We therefore accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint and review the case de novo “to test the law of the claim, not the facts which support it.”

Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a plaintiff cannot obtain relief under any set of facts that could be proved in support of the claim.

Wood v. BD&A Construction, L.L.C. · filed 2004-09-07Rule 12(b)(6)

A motion should be granted if it appears to a certainty that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts which could be proved in support of the claim.

Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a complaint is legally insufficient to state a claim.

Lambeth v. MEDIA GENERAL, INC. · filed 2004-12-07(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss made pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint.

Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint without deciding whether the plaintiff can prove the alleged facts or proximate cause at trial.

Stein v. Asheville City Board of Education · filed 2005-02-01(b)(6)

Our Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly cautioned against trial and appellate courts judging proximate causation at the motion to dismiss stage. See, e.g., Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 108, 176 S.E.2d 161, 169 (1970) (although the Court believed, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, that plaintiff's injury could not have been foreseen, nonetheless holding "we cannot say on the basis of the `bare bones pleadings' that plaintiff cannot prove otherwise"; "[t]his case is not yet ripe for a determination that there can be no liability as a matter of law"); McMillan v. Mahoney, 99 N.C.App. 448, 455-56, 393 S.E.2d 298, 303 (1990) ("This Court has held that in reviewing a ... motion to dismiss pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6), the Court is not concerned with whether plaintiff can prove his factual allegations; neither are we concerned with whether plaintiff can establish proximate cause, including foreseeability, at the trial." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Rule 12(b)(6) requires the court to take the complaint’s allegations as true and deny dismissal when those allegations may support an exception to a statute of limitations defense.

Locklear v. Lanuti · filed 2006-03-07(b)(6)

Here, taking plaintiffs allegations as true and reviewing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it does not appear “to a certainty” that plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the continuing course of treatment doctrine to overcome defendants’ statute of limitations defense.

Rule 12(b)(6) requires courts to take a complaint’s allegations as true when deciding whether it states a legally viable claim.

Daniels v. Metro Magazine Holding Co., L.L.C. · filed 2006-09-19Rule 12(b)(6)

In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, all of the plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true.

A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo.

North Carolina State Bar v. Brewer · filed 2007-05-15Rule 12(b)(6)

Our review of dismissal of a claim pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) (2005) is de novo.

Rule 12(b)(6) requires courts to take complaint allegations as true and determine whether they state a legally cognizable claim.

Grant v. High Point Regional Health System · filed 2007-06-19Rule 12(b)(6)

However, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, we look only to whether the allegations in a complaint, taken as true, state a legally cognizable claim.

A Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s pleading while treating its factual allegations as true.

Culler v. Administrative Office of the Courts · filed 2007-06-22Rule 12(b)

A Motion to Dismiss founded in Rule 12(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of plaintiff's Affidavit, treating all factual allegations as true.

A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is reviewed de novo to determine whether the pleadings are legally sufficient.

Etter v. Pigg · filed 2007-11-06Rule 12(b)(6)

The appellate court conducts a de novo review of the pleadings to determine their legal sufficiency and decides whether the trial court's ruling on the motion to dismiss was erroneous.

Rule 12(b)(6) requires courts to treat complaint allegations as true, construe the complaint liberally, and dismiss only when no set of supporting facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Nucor Corp. v. Prudential Equity Group, LLC · filed 2008-04-15Rule 12(b)(6)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the standard of review is whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory. The complaint must be liberally construed, and the court should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff could not prove any set of facts to support his claim which would entitle him to relief.

A counterclaim survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when its allegations, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim, even if they may not be proved after discovery.

Gress v. Rowboat Co., Inc. · filed 2008-06-03Rule 12(b)(6)

While defendants may not be able to prove their allegations after the discovery stage, these allegations are sufficient to survive plaintiff’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim while treating the claimant's allegations as true.

Bunch v. N.C. Department of Correction · filed 2009-04-16Rule 12(b)(6)

A Motion to Dismiss upon the pleadings tests the legal sufficiency of Bunch's Affidavit. For the purpose of NCDOC's Motion To Dismiss, Bunch's allegations are as treated as true. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 , Rule 12(b)(6).

Rule 12(b)(6) requires courts to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and construe the complaint liberally when deciding a motion to dismiss.

Swan Beach Corolla, L.L.C. v. County of Currituck · filed 2014-07-01Rule 12(b)(6)

As we are considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, we must assume that the facts alleged by plaintiffs are true and liberally construe the complaint.

Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim; at this stage, the question is whether the plaintiff may offer evidence supporting it.

Eli Global, LLC v. Heavner · filed 2016-12-06Rule 12(b)(6)

However, defendant’s reliance on extrinsic sources is premature, given that “on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims[.]” Andrews, 109 N.C. App. at 275, 426 S.E.2d at 432 (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

When reviewing a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the court takes the complaint’s factual allegations as true.

Silver v. Halifax Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners · filed 2018-12-21Rule 12(b)(6)

In conducting our review of a complaint dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we take all of the factual allegations stated in plaintiffs’ complaint as true.

When reviewing a dismissal motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court views the complaint’s allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Providence Volunteer Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Town of Weddington · filed 2022-08-19Rule 12(b)(6)

The factual statements set forth above are based upon the allegations contained in Providence’s complaint, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to Providence given that this case is before us based upon the trial court’s rulings with respect to the Town’s and the Mayor’s motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6).

Rule 12(b)(6) governs a collateral-estoppel argument that bears on the plaintiff’s ability to state a claim.

Semelka v. The Univ. of N.C. · filed 2023-06-06Rule 12(b)(6)

However, defendants’ arguments on appeal focus exclusively on the doctrine of collateral estoppel and plaintiff’s ability to state a claim under the Whistleblower Act. Thus, we focus our analysis on Rule 12(b)(6).

Rule 12(b)(6) allows a complaint to survive dismissal when its alleged facts indicate a colorable claim and give the defendant enough notice to prepare a defense.

Howell v. Cooper · filed 2025-08-22Rule 12(b)(6)

Thus, a complaint survives a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) if the alleged facts tend to show a colorable legal claim and allow a defendant to understand the claim’s nature and prepare its defense.

Rule 54 treats an order that does not dispose of all claims as interlocutory.

DANAI v. DANAI · filed 2004-09-07Rule 54(a) and (b)

Initially, we note that this is an appeal from an interlocutory order because the trial court's order did not dispose of the cause of action as to all claims. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (2003), Rule 54(a) and (b) of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 58 makes an order final when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.

Collins v. Holley · filed 2025-06-18Rule 58

Further, “an order is not final until ‘it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court[.]’ ” In re L.G.A., 277 N.C. App. 46, 54, 857 S.E.2d 761, 767 (2021) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58). Thus, “[a] party would have no way of ‘objecting’ to a provision of the order until after the order is written, signed, and filed; that is the purpose of an appeal.” Id. at 54, 857 S.E.2d at 768.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Miller v. Owens · filed 2004-09-07Rule 56(c)

Therefore, we hold that no genuineissue of material fact remains in the suit between plaintiff and Assurance, and that plaintiff is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Charlotte Eastland Mall, LLC v. Sole Survivor, Inc. · filed 2004-10-19Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2003).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Zander v. GREATER EMMANUEL PENTECOSTAL TEMPLE OF DURHAM · filed 2005-01-04(c)

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2002).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Thomas v. Weddle · filed 2004-12-07Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Harrell v. N.C. D.O.C. · filed 2005-02-15Rule 56(c)

Therefore, summary judgment is only proper when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 , Rule 56(c) (1999).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Iadanza v. Harper · filed 2005-04-19Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is properly granted if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together ... with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2003).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record, viewed in the nonmoving party's favor, shows no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Bruning & Federle Mfg. Co. v. Mills · filed 2005-10-04Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is properly granted where, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2003); Bruce-Terminix Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 130 N.C. App. 729, 733, 504 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1998).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Lohrmann v. Iredell Memorial Hospital Inc. · filed 2005-10-18Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as' to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2003).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Horton v. NIEBAUER · filed 2006-02-21Rule 56(c)

A motion for summary judgment should be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2004).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ceplecha v. Pine Knoll Townes Phase II · filed 2006-03-07Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2003).

Rule 56(c) allows summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Group, L.L.C. · filed 2006-09-26Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment should be granted if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2006).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Builders Mutual Insurance v. North Main Construction, Ltd. · filed 2006-12-15Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact" and "any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2005).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Media Network, Inc. v. Mullen Adver., Inc. · filed 2007-01-19Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment should be granted if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Geitner Ex Rel. Southern Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Mullins · filed 2007-04-17Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment only when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Babb v. Bynum & Murphrey, PLLC · filed 2007-04-17Rule 56(c)

Granting summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2005).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Battleground Veterinary Hosp., P.C. v. McGeoughâ · filed 2007-10-19Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment should be granted if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Se Jurisdictional Admin'Ve Cncl. v. Emerson · filed 2008-01-15Rule 56

The central issue is whether the trial court correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the evidence, viewed in the nonmoving party's favor, shows no genuine issue of material fact.

Moore v. Rhodes · filed 2008-06-03Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is properly granted when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows no genuine issue of material fact remains between the parties.

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Foster v. Nash-Rocky Mount Bd. of Educ. · filed 2008-07-15Rule 56

Summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... Plaintiff does not explain how such information about general procedures and conduct not specific to the date the incident occurred creates a genuine issue of material fact as to defendant Brown's breach of her duty.

Rule 56(c) requires courts considering summary judgment to view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Head v. Gould Killian Cpa Grp., P.A. · filed 2016-12-20Rule 56(c)

Viewing the Defendants’ evidence as conclusive fact Defendant delivered and Plaintiff physically received her returns is error and does not view all the record evidence, and every reasonable inference therefrom, in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Recurrent Energy Dev. Holdings, LLC v. Sunenergy1, LLC · filed 2018-06-22Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) requires the evidence on summary judgment to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

North v. McRae · filed 2018-09-04Rule 56(c)

Because we are considering a summary judgment order, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs as the non-moving parties.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Sloan v. Inolife Techs., Inc. · filed 2018-11-30Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact remains and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Cogdill v. Sylva Supply Co. · filed 2019-05-07Rule 56(c)

As there was no genuine issue of material fact and Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants is affirmed.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Hocutt v. Hocutt · filed 2019-04-04Rule 56(c)

“Summary judgment is appropriate when ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact’ and ‘any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. N. Main Constr., Ltd., 361 N.C. 85, 88, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2006) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c)).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

SciGrip, Inc. v. Osae · filed 2020-02-28Rule 56(c)

According to well-established North Carolina law, summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Cabarrus Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Dep't of State Treasurer · filed 2020-04-03(c)

According to well-established North Carolina law, summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ehmann v. Medflow, Inc. · filed 2020-04-09Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact[,] and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Vill. Square, LLC v. G.T.T. Corp. · filed 2020-07-20Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c).

Rule 56 permits summary judgment when no material fact is disputed and the remaining question is one of law.

S. Envtl. Law Ctr. v. N.C. R.R. Co. · filed 2020-08-20Rule 56(c)

In this case, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, as the parties acknowledged during the August 13, 2020 video conference hearing on the Cross-Motions. Rather, the question before the Court on the Cross-Motions is whether, as a matter of law, the NCRR is an agency of the State for purposes of the Public Records Act. This is a question, therefore, that can be decided by this Court on summary judgment.

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Clark v. Burnette · filed 2020-12-02Rule 56(c)

“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Variety Wholesalers, Inc. v. Salem Logistics Traffic Servs., LLC, 365 N.C. 520, 523, 723 S.E.2d 744, 747 (2012) (quoting N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, N.C. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Murphy-Brown, LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co. · filed 2020-12-22Rule 56(c)

Summary judgement is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Variety Wholesalers, Inc. v. Salem Logistics Traffic Servs., 365 N.C. 520, 523, 723 S.E.2d 744, 747 (2012) (quoting N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c)).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Clark v. Burnette · filed 2021-04-29Rule 56(c)

“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Variety Wholesalers, Inc. v. Salem Logistics Traffic Servs., LLC, 365 N.C. 520, 523 (2012) (quoting N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, N.C. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Fox v. Johnson · filed 2021-09-21Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2021).

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Butterfield v. Gray · filed 2021-10-05Rule 56(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Rule 56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ralph Hodge Constr. Co. v. Brunswick Reg'l Water & Sewer H2GO · filed 2022-07-19(c)

“Summary judgment is appropriate when ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact’ and ‘any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. North Main Constr., Ltd., 361 N.C. 85, 88, 637 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2006) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c)).

A dismissal with prejudice, including one under Rule 12(b)(6), is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes.

Ashton v. City of Concord, North Carolina · filed 2004-09-17Rule 41(b)

A dismissal with prejudice, including a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes.

Rule 41(b) treats a dismissal as with prejudice and a final judgment on the merits when the order does not specify that it is without prejudice.

Du Phan v. Clinard Oil Co. · filed 2017-05-02Rule 41(b)

Because the trial court's order dismissing the first complaint does not specify it is "without prejudice," the order functions as a dismissal with prejudice, and thus a final judgment on the merits.

Rule 41(b) makes a dismissal an adjudication on the merits unless it indicates otherwise, but that effect does not mean the underlying issues were actually determined.

Brown v. Thompson · filed 2019-03-05Rule 41(b)

Although a dismissal that does not indicate otherwise operates as an adjudication on the merits, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 41(b) (2017), there was no determination of the underlying issues that would raise the potential for an inconsistent verdict in the present case.

Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal terminates the action and divests the court of jurisdiction over it.

Marlow v. TCS Designs, Inc. · filed 2025-07-02Rule 41(a)

A voluntary dismissal divests the court of jurisdiction over the matter.

Rule 54(b) permits immediate appeal of a final judgment as to fewer than all defendants when the trial court certifies that there is no just reason for delay.

Eckard v. Smith · filed 2004-10-05Rule 54(b)

Here, the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the Iredell defendants is properly before this Court based on the trial court's Rule 54(b) certification. The trial court entered final judgment as to the Iredell defendants, leaving only the claims against Smith to be tried, and found that "there is no just reason for delay."

Rule 54(b) permits immediate appeal when an order is final as to some claims or parties and the trial court certifies it for appeal.

Mueller v. Brantley · filed 2004-10-19Rule 54(b)

First, "if the order or judgment is final as to some but not all of the claims or parties, and the trial court certifies the case for appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b), an immediate appeal will lie." ... In the instant case, the order is not final as to any claim or party, and the trial court did not certify it for immediate appeal.

Rule 54(b) permits an immediate appeal from an order final as to some claims or parties when the trial court certifies it for appeal.

Mitchell v. Broadway · filed 2004-11-02Rule 54(b)

There are two instances in which an interlocutory order is immediately appealable: (1) if the order is final as to some but not all of theclaims or parties, and the trial court certifies the case for appeal under Rule 54(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (2004); and (2) when the order being challenged affects a "substantial right" of the appellant, which would be lost absent immediate appellate review. ... The trial court did not certify this matter for appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b).

Rule 54(b) allows an immediate appeal after a final determination of one or more claims if the trial court certifies that there is no just reason to delay the appeal.

Camp v. Camp · filed 2005-02-15Rule 54(b)

There are two instances where a party may appeal interlocutory orders: (1) when there has been a final determination as to one or more of the claims and the trial court certifies that there is no just reason to delay the appeal, and (2) if delaying the appeal would prejudice a substantial right. ... Here, the trial court made no such certification.

Rule 54(b) permits immediate review of an uncertified interlocutory order when delaying review would cause the loss of a substantial right.

McCutchen v. McCutchen · filed 2005-05-03Rule 54(b)

Notwithstanding the fact that no final judgment was entered as to the issue of damages for the tort of criminal conversation, nor was Rule 54 certification granted, we conclude that this appeal does affect a substantial right which would be lost absent immediate review.

Rule 54(b) permits an immediate appeal after a final determination of one or more claims if the trial court certifies that there is no just reason to delay the appeal.

Milton v. Thompson · filed 2005-05-03Rule 54(b)

There are two instances where a party may appeal interlocutory orders: (1) when there has been a final determination as to one or more of the claims and the trial court certifies that there is no just reason to delay the appeal, and (2) if delaying the appeal would prejudice a substantial right. ... Here, the trial court made no such certification.

Rule 54(b) certification cannot make a judgment immediately appealable when substantive issues remain for a supplemental hearing.

DAHER v. DAHER · filed 2005-12-06Rule 54(b)

Accordingly, the equitable distribution judgment was not a final judgment, and the trial court improperly certified the equitable distribution judgment as being immediately appealable.

Rule 54(b) requires the trial court to state its no-just-reason-for-delay determination in the judgment; a later oral comment does not satisfy that requirement.

White v. Carver · filed 2005-12-20Rule 54(b)

In short, we do not believe the off-hand, after-the-fact statement of the trial court relied upon by the Fund in any way approaches the certification requirements of Rule 54(b).

Rule 54(b) permits immediate appeal of an interlocutory order when the trial court certifies it for immediate appeal.

McIntyre v. McIntyre · filed 2006-01-17Rule 54(b)

Without question, moreover, neither the Order nor the Judgment contains certification by the trial court for immediate appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54.

Rule 54(b) permits an immediate appeal of a certified interlocutory order only if the order is a final judgment as to at least one claim or party.

Harris v. Matthews · filed 2007-05-04Rule 54(b)

An interlocutory order is also immediately appealable if the trial court certifies that: (1) the order represents a final judgment as to one or more claims in a multi-claim lawsuit or one or more parties in a multi-party lawsuit, and (2) there is no just reason to delay the appeal. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (2005). Rule 54(b) is not applicable to this case because the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss was not a final judgment as to any party or claim.

Rule 54(b) does not permit an interlocutory appeal without a final judgment as to the party or a certification that there is no just reason to delay appeal.

In Re ARG · filed 2007-06-28Rule 54(b)

An interlocutory appeal may also be taken pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) when multiple claims for relief or multiple parties are involved. Rule 54(b) is not applicable in this case, as the trial court has not entered a final judgment as to respondent-father or certified that there is no just reason to delay an appeal from the order in question.

Rule 54(b) permits certification of a partial final judgment for appeal when dismissed and remaining claims are intertwined and proceeding to trial could produce inconsistent verdicts.

Kinesis Advertising, Inc. v. Hill · filed 2007-11-06Rule 54(b)

Here, given the prolonged procedural history of the case, the number of claims and counterclaims, and the same set of operative facts underlying the entire case, we agree with the trial court’s determination that the claims that have been dismissed and those that remain are “factually and legally intertwined” such that proceeding to trial could result in verdicts inconsistent with the earlier dismissals. We therefore affirm the trial court’s Rule 54(b) certification and address the merits of both Kinesis’s and Defendants’ appeals of the granting of summary judgment in the 16 May 2006 order.

Rule 54(b) certification does not make an order appealable when it is not final as to any party unless the order affects a substantial right.

Reid v. Cole · filed 2007-11-20Rule 54(b)

Where as here, the order is not "final" as to any party, the party seeking review of the interlocutory order still must show that it affects a substantial right even with trial court certification.

Rule 54(b) permits certification for immediate appeal only when the trial court has entered judgment as to some, but not all, claims or parties.

Martin v. AKURANG · filed 2008-07-15Rule 54(b)

However, this certification was improperly granted given that Rule 54(b) applies only in cases where the trial court has entered judgment as to some, but not all, claims or parties .

Rule 54(b) requires trial court certification before an interlocutory judgment may be appealed under its exception.

Atkins v. Peek · filed 2008-11-04Rule 54(b)

First, the trial court did not certify the judgment for appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b).

Rule 54(b) permits immediate review of an interlocutory order when there is no just reason for delay, but the appellate court is not bound by the trial court’s certification.

Wiggs v. Peedin · filed 2008-12-16Rule 54(b)

Here, the trial court certified plaintiffs’ appeal as immediately appealable pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Even though this Court is not bound by the trial court’s certification, in our discretion we review this interlocutory appeal because there is no just reason for delay and our review will avoid piece-meal litigation.

Rule 54(b) requires trial court certification before a judgment resolving fewer than all claims or parties can be appealed immediately.

ALALA v. Hardie · filed 2009-01-06Rule 54(b)

However, the trial court did not certify this case for immediate appeal as required by Rule 54(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 54(b) permits certification for immediate appeal only when the trial court has entered judgment on at least one claim or as to at least one party; denying summary judgment on all claims does not qualify.

Cadlerock, LLC v. Carolina Koolers of Virginia, LLC · filed 2009-04-07Rule 54(b)

Rule 54(b) applies only in cases in which the trial court has entered judgment as to some, but not all, claims or parties. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (2007). The trial court's denial of the parties' motions for summary judgment was not a final determination as to any of the parties' various claims. See First Atl. Mgmt. Corp. v. Dunlea Realty Co., 131 N.C. App. 242, 247, 507 S.E.2d 56, 60 (1998). Therefore, the certification was improperly granted and the interlocutory order is not immediately appealable pursuant to the first exception.

Rule 54(b) permits an immediate appeal from a judgment resolving fewer than all claims or parties when the trial court certifies that there is no just reason to delay the appeal.

Pigg v. MASSAGEE · filed 2009-04-07Rule 54(b)

However, when “(1) the order represents a final judgment as to one or more claims in a multiple claim lawsuit or one or' more parties in a multi-party lawsuit,” and (2) the trial court certifies that “there is no just reason to delay the appeal,” Rule 54 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure permits an immediate appeal.

Rule 54(b) does not permit a claim to be certified as final while attorney’s fees and other costs ancillary to that claim remain unassessed.

Bumpers v. COMMUNITY BANK OF N. VIRGINIA · filed 2009-05-05(b)

We hold that court costs do not constitute a separate claim for purposes of Rule 54(b) analysis. Rather, the court costs are ancillary to the claim under Chapter 75 of the General Statutes. It was improper for the trial court to certify its order as final as to a claim without first assessing attorney’s fees and other costs.

Rule 54(b) certification has no effect unless the trial court has entered a final judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties.

Meherrin Indian Tribe v. Lewis · filed 2009-06-02Rule 54(b)

Here, the trial court certified its order “for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and Section l-277(a) of the North Carolina General Statutes.” The trial court did not, however, “enter[] a final judgment as to fewer than all of the claims or parties in [the] action.” ... The trial court’s certification of its denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss has no effect in this instance.

Rule 54(b) certification permits immediate appeal of an order that resolves some claims or parties; without it, the appellant must show that delayed review would cause the loss of a substantial right.

FMB, INC. v. Creech · filed 2009-07-07Rule 54(b)

Where plaintiff appeals an interlocutory order that does not contain a Rule 54(b) certification, and fails to demonstrate that a substantial right will be lost unless it is immediately reviewed, the appeal is dismissed.

Rule 54(b) permits immediate appeal of a final judgment on a claim or party in a case involving multiple claims or parties when the trial court certifies that there is no just reason to delay the appeal.

Hoke County Board of Education v. State · filed 2009-07-21Rule 54(b)

However, Rule 54(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure permits an immediate appeal when "(1) the order represents a final judgment as to one or more claims in a multi-claim lawsuit or one or more parties in a multi-party lawsuit," and (2) the trial court certifies that "there is no just reason to delay the appeal." Harris v. Matthews, 361 N.C. 265, 269 n. 1, 643 S.E.2d 566, 569 (2007) (citing N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b)).

Rule 54(b) permits certification for immediate appeal when an order finally resolves all claims against one party.

Burton v. Barbee · filed 2009-07-21Rule 54(b)

With respect to the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Barbee, that issue was finally determined, in that all claims against Defendant Barbee were dismissed, and certification for immediate appeal was appropriate for that particular issue.

Rule 54(b) permits immediate appeal of a certified partial judgment when there is no just reason to delay review of an issue central to multiple claims.

Albert v. Cowart · filed 2009-09-15Rule 54(b)

Given the number of claims and counterclaims .in this matter that are dependent upon the survivorship issue, we agree with the trial court’s determination that “[t]here is no just reason to delay the appeal of th[ese] Judgments].”

Rule 54(b) permits an immediate appeal from a judgment resolving fewer than all claims or parties when the trial court certifies it for appeal.

Plomaritis v. Plomaritis · filed 2009-10-20Rule 54(b)

In the present case, the trial court did not certify the order pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (2007), and therefore it is not immediately appealable under this provision.

Rule 54(b) certification does not permit immediate appeal when the ruling leaves intertwined issues of liability and damages unresolved.

Tands, Inc. v. Coastal Plains Realty, Inc. · filed 2009-11-17Rule 54(b)

In this argument, plaintiff concedes that the issue of whether defendant has an obligation to mitigate its damages is “hopelessly intertwined” with the question of plaintiff’s possible liability for overage rent. We agree, but it is for that reason that we are unable to review the matter notwithstanding the trial court’s certification pursuant to Rule 54(b).

Rule 54(b) permits an immediate appeal of an order final as to some claims or parties when the trial court certifies it for appeal.

Tardani v. Tardani · filed 2010-01-05Rule 54(b)

An interlocutory order may nevertheless be heard on appeal if either (1) the trial court certifies a case for appeal "which is final as to some but not all of the claims or parties . . . pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b)"; or (2) "if [the interlocutory order] affects a substantial right that will be lost if not reviewed immediately." Id. at 410, 507 S.E.2d at 318. In this case, the trial court did not certify the issue of post-separation support for appeal, and the award of post-separation support in the September 2008 order does not affect a substantial right that will be lost if not reviewed immediately.

Rule 54(b) permits certification and appeal of a judgment resolving all substantive issues of a section 75-1.1 claim even when a request for attorney fees under section 75-16.1 remains unresolved.

Bumpers v. COMMUNITY BANK OF N. VIRGINIA · filed 2010-06-17Rule 54(b)

Thus, we hold that an order or judgment ruling on all substantive issues of a claim under section 75-1.1 is a final judgment that may be certified and appealed pursuant to Rule 54(b), notwithstanding any unresolved issue of attorney fees under section 75-16.1.

Rule 54(b) permits certification for immediate appeal only when the order is a final judgment as to at least one claim or party.

Harbour Point Homeowners'assoc., Inc. Ex Rel. Bd. of Dir. v. Djf Enterprises · filed 2010-08-03Rule 54(b)

As a result, since the order in question was not a final judgment with respect to any claim or party, we conclude that the trial court’s order was not subject to certification for immediate review pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b), and that no immediate appeal from the trial court’s order is available on this basis.

Rule 54(b) permits immediate review of an order resolving fewer than all claims or parties when the trial court certifies it as final and finds no just reason for delay.

Stanford v. Paris · filed 2010-08-27Rule 54(b)

As plaintiffs note, the trial court did not certify that the 16 February 2007 order was a final judgment and that there was no just reason for delay under Rule 54(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which would have made the order subject to immediate appellate review. The order did not resolve all claims or all rights and liabilities of all parties and was, thus, not a final order.

Rule 54(b) certification permits an immediate appeal of an order final as to some claims or parties when the trial court finds no just reason for delay.

Triad Women's Center, P.A. v. Rogers · filed 2010-10-05Rule 54(b)

The summary judgment order does not include any Rule 54(b) certification, and defendant has made no argument that the order affects a substantial right that will be lost without an immediate appeal.

Rule 54(b) allows immediate appeal of a certified judgment only when it finally resolves a claim for relief separable from the remaining claims.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 2010-11-16Rule 54(b)

Because the Order does not fully and finally adjudicate a claim for relief separable from the remaining claims in the case, we conclude the Order is not immediately appealable under Rule 54(b).

Rule 54(b) permits an immediate appeal when a judgment resolves all claims against one party and the trial court certifies that there is no just reason for delay.

Chidnese v. Chidnese · filed 2011-03-15Rule 54(b)

Since the order also included a Rule 54(b) certification that there was no just reason to delay plaintiff’s appeal, plaintiff’s appeal is properly before this Court.

An uncertified partial summary judgment does not end the action as to the affected parties, who may remain liable for costs incurred until final judgment.

Green ex rel. Crudup v. Kearny · filed 2013-02-05Rule 54(b)

However, given the literal language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b), which explicitly provides that the entry of an interlocutory order like the one at issue here does “not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties” involved, absent a certification of finality, and given the fact that the trial court retained the authority under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) to revise, or even to reverse, such an interlocutory order until the entry of a final judgment, we are compelled to hold that the trial court did not commit an error of law by taxing costs incurred after the entry of an order granting summary judgment in Defendants’ favor with respect to the negligent infliction of emotional distress claims asserted against them by Mr. Alston and Ms. Kelly against all Plaintiffs.

Rule 54(b) certification supports an immediate appeal only when the order finally resolves a specific claim or all claims relating to a specific party.

Bynum v. Wilson County · filed 2013-06-18Rule 54(b)

Although the record indicates that the trial court certified the order at issue in this case for immediate appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b), Defendants have correctly refrained from relying on that certification in support of their request for immediate review of their non-immunity-related claims given that the trial court’s order did not constitute a final resolution of any specific claim or of all claims relating to any specific party.

Rule 54(b) limits review of a certified partial judgment to the issues finally determined in that judgment.

State v. Cortez · filed 2013-08-20Rule 54(b)

Accordingly, we limit our review of the 11 April 2012 order regarding File No. 12 CVS 30 to the issues certified for appeal as finally determined by the court pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b), which are those issues that “relate[] to declaratory judgment and the substantive law of contracts on the original contract between [the State] and [the Bondsmen].”

Rule 54(b) certification for immediate appeal requires a final judgment as to a claim or party.

Ingle v. Ingle · filed 2014-02-04Rule 54(b)

As a result of the fact that the trial court did not certify the order from which Plaintiff seeks to appeal for immediate review pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b), and could not have properly done so given that the challenged order did not constitute a final judgment as to either a claim or a party, we lack the authority to reach the merits of Plaintiff’s challenge to the trial court’s order unless the challenged order affects a substantial right.

When a trial court does not certify an order for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b), the appellant must show that delayed review would cost a substantial right.

LCA Dev., LLC v. WMS Mgmt. Grp., LLC · filed 2014-05-20Rule 54(b)

Because the trial court did not certify its order as immediately appealable pursuant to Rule 54(b), the burden is on plaintiff to establish that a substantial right will be lost if the trial court’s order is not immediately reviewed.

Rule 54(b) certification does not make an order immediately appealable unless the order is a final judgment.

Newbridge Bank v. R.C. Koonts & Sons Masonry, Inc. · filed 2014-06-17Rule 54(b)

Given that Judge Royster’s orders are not final judgments, the trial court’s certification of them pursuant to Rule 54(b) does not render them immediately appealable.

Rule 54(b) certification does not permit an immediate appeal unless the order finally resolves a claim.

Holbert v. Holbert · filed 2014-08-05Rule 54(b)

However, the trial court’s certification was not effective to allow an immediate appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b), given that the 4 June 2013 order did not finally resolve any claim between the parties.

Rule 54(b) permits immediate appeal certification when a judgment finally resolves at least one, but fewer than all, claims or parties; an order reopening the entire case cannot be certified under it.

Campbell v. Campbell · filed 2014-10-21Rule 54(b)

The Rule 60(b) order from which Ms. Davis appeals did not enter a final judgment on some but not all claims; rather, it set aside an earlier final judgment under Rule 60(b), re-opening the case in its entirety. Thus, the trial court’s order could not properly be certified under Rule 54(b).

Rule 54(b) certification must appear in the judgment being appealed; a later order cannot retroactively certify it for immediate appeal.

Parker v. Colson · filed 2017-02-07Rule 54(b)

The trial court's 31 March 2016 order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment did not contain a Rule 54(b) certification and left Plaintiff's outstanding claims against the remaining defendants unresolved. The trial court then impermissibly attempted to retroactively certify its 31 March 2016 order for immediate appeal by means of an order entered on 31 May 2016-two months after its prior order was entered and after Plaintiff had filed his notice of appeal.

Rule 54(b) certification permits an immediate appeal when the trial court has resolved fewer than all claims.

Terry v. State · filed 2017-02-07Rule 54(b)

Here, in its 3 December 2015 order, the trial court certified the order for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b). Therefore, we possess jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' appeal.

Rule 54(b) permits an immediate appeal in a case with multiple claims or parties when the trial court certifies a final judgment as to some claims or parties and finds no just reason to delay the appeal.

Stonewall Constr. Servs., LLC v. Frosty Parrott Burlington · filed 2017-04-04Rule 54(b)

First, in multi-claim or multi-party litigation, if the trial court certifies under Rule 54(b) that its order represents a final judgment as to some claims or parties and there is no just reason to delay the appeal. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54 (2015). ... Here, the interlocutory order was not Rule 54(b) -certified, and Stonewall advanced no showing of a substantial right.

An order resolving claims against fewer than all defendants remains interlocutory without Rule 54(b) certification or a substantial right warranting immediate review.

Moon Wright & Hous., PLLC v. Cole · filed 2017-04-18Rule 54(b)

Nor has the trial court certified its summary judgment order for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, because Plaintiff’s claims against Sandra remain outstanding, we dismiss the present appeal as interlocutory.

Rule 54(b) certification permits an immediate appeal of a judgment resolving fewer than all claims or parties; without certification, an interlocutory appellant must establish another basis for appeal.

Banyan GW, LLC v. Wayne Preparatory Acad. Charter Sch., Inc. · filed 2019-02-05Rule 54(b)

The trial court's 6 November 2017 order does not contain a certification under Rule 54(b). Therefore, the WPA Defendants' appeal is proper only if they can demonstrate a substantial right that would be lost absent an immediate appeal.

Rule 54(b) gives the trial court discretion to reconsider an interlocutory order, generally for new evidence, a change in controlling law, clear error, or manifest injustice.

Ehmann v. Medflow, Inc. · filed 2019-02-06Rule 54(b)

Generally, trial courts restrict reconsideration to grounds based on “(1) the discovery of new evidence, (2) an intervening development or change in the controlling law, or (3) the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.”

Without Rule 54(b) certification, an appellant seeking immediate review of an interlocutory order must show that it affects a substantial right.

Bezzek v. Bezzek · filed 2019-02-19Rule 54(b)

The trial court did not certify the order for review under Rule 54(b), so Wife must show that she has ... been deprived of a substantial right pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1–277 and 7A–27(d)(1).

Rule 54(b) permits immediate appeal of an order final as to some claims when the court certifies that there is no just reason to delay the appeal.

Dicesare v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. · filed 2019-02-27Rule 54(b)

For these reasons, if Plaintiffs seek immediate appellate review of this Order and Opinion, the Court certifies there is no just reason to delay the appeal and urges the Supreme Court to docket the appeal.

Rule 54(b) permits an interlocutory appeal when the trial court certifies a final determination of at least one claim; without certification, the appellant must show that delay would affect a substantial right.

Lake v. State Health Plan For Teachers & State Emps. · filed 2019-03-05Rule 54(b)

A party may appeal an interlocutory order if either: (1) the trial court makes a final determination regarding at least one claim and certifies there is no just reason to delay under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b); or, (2) if delaying the appeal would affect a substantial right. Id. at 23-24, 437 S.E.2d at 677. The record does not include the trial court’s Rule 54(b) certification. The only basis upon which Defendants’ interlocutory appeal may proceed is to demonstrate a substantial right is impacted.

Rule 54(b) permits immediate appeal through trial court certification; without certification, an interlocutory appellant must show that the order affects a substantial right.

Dep't of Transp. v. Bloomsbury Estates, LLC · filed 2019-03-05Rule 54(b)

The trial court did not certify the § 136-108 Order for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b). See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (2017). Association is required to show the § 136-108 Order affects a substantial right.

Rule 54(b) allows an immediate appeal of an order resolving fewer than all claims or parties when the trial court certifies it for appeal; without certification, the appellant must establish a substantial right to appeal immediately.

Gray v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n · filed 2019-03-26Rule 54(b)

The trial court’s 13 March 2018 order was not a final judgment as it did not fully resolve the claims asserted by the parties. Nor did the trial court purport to certify it for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b). Therefore, TSC’s appeal is proper only if it is able to demonstrate a substantial right that would be lost absent an immediate appeal.

Rule 54(b) allows an interlocutory appeal when the trial court certifies that there is no just reason to delay appeal.

Coates v. Durham Cty. · filed 2019-07-16Rule 54(b)

A party may appeal an interlocutory order if either: (1) the trial court certifies there is no just reason to delay appeal under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) or (2) if delaying the appeal would affect a substantial right. Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994) (citations omitted). Here, the trial court’s Order does not contain a Rule 54(b) certification; therefore, we consider whether the Order affects a substantial right of Respondent.

Rule 54(b) permits immediate appeal of a judgment resolving fewer than all claims or parties when the trial court certifies that there is no just reason for delay.

Manley v. Maple Grove Nursing Home · filed 2019-08-20Rule 54(b)

No Rule 54 certification is reflected in the record, and Plaintiff nowhere argues that the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Amend affected a substantial right within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-277 or 7A-27.

Rule 54(b) permits a court to revise an order before final judgment adjudicates all claims and the rights and liabilities of all parties.

Knc Techs., LLC v. Tutton · filed 2021-04-08Rule 54(b)

To the extent the Dismissal Order can be read as addressing issues other than the reasonableness of the restrictive period, the Court hereby revises its prior ruling to make clear that it addressed only the reasonableness of the ten-year restrictive period. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (“In the absence of entry of [ ] a final judgment, any order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”).

Rule 54(b) permits a court to revise an interlocutory ruling before judgment resolves all claims and parties’ rights and liabilities.

Rossabi Law Pllc v. Greater Greensboro Ent. Grp., LLC · filed 2021-07-20Rule 54(b)

Under Rule 54(b), an interlocutory ruling, like the Order and Opinion, “is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b).

In Business Court, a Rule 54(b) request for reconsideration must be made by a separate motion with a supporting brief; including the request in an opposition brief does not properly present it.

Morris Int'l, Inc. v. Packer, 2021 Ncbc 66a · filed 2021-11-02Rule 54(b)

The North Carolina Business Court Rules require that a motion be contained in a separate document and accompanied by a supporting brief. BCR 7.2. Because MI has not complied with either of these requirements and instead has simply attempted at the summary judgment stage to include within its brief a request that the Court revisit a prior ruling, no Rule 54(b) motion has properly been presented to the Court.

Without Rule 54(b) certification or a petition for certiorari, an appellant seeking immediate review of an interlocutory order must show that the order affects a substantial right.

SR Auto Transp., Inc. v. Adam's Auto Grp. · filed 2023-01-17Rule 54(b)

In the absence of a valid Rule 54(b) certification or Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Defendants must, therefore, demonstrate the trial court’s Order affects a substantial right in order to establish a right of immediate appeal.

Rule 54(b) permits an immediate appeal when an order finally resolves at least one claim in a case with multiple claims or parties and the order certifies that there is no just reason for delay.

Flomeh-Mawutor v. City of Winston-Salem · filed 2024-08-06Rule 54(b)

Nevertheless, the trial court’s proper Rule 54(b) certification effectively vests jurisdiction in this Court because the case involves multiple parties with multiple claims; the order on appeal finally resolved all claims against the City; and the trial court certified that “there is no just reason for delay” of an immediate appeal, and included this certification on the face of the order from which Plaintiffs appeal.

Rule 54(b) permits an immediate appeal of a certified judgment that finally resolves some claims or parties in a case involving multiple claims or parties.

Choto Enters., Inc. v. H&G Logistics, Inc. · filed 2025-08-20Rule 54(b)

Because the trial court’s ruling fully disposed of plaintiffs’ breach of contract and UDTP claims and all claims against the Lotterers individually, it constitutes a final judgment as to those claims and parties. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to review plaintiffs’ appeal.

Rule 54(b) requires the trial court to certify that there is no just reason for delay before an order resolving fewer than all claims or parties may be immediately appealed.

Anshi Hospitality Charlotte LLC v. Robinson · filed 2025-11-05(b)

Under Rule 54, the trial court must certify that there is no just reason to delay the appeal.

Rule 54(b) allows immediate appeal of an interlocutory order when the trial court certifies that there is no just reason for delay.

Wetherington v. Seaman · filed 2025-11-19Rule 54(b)

Exceptions to no appellate review of an interlocutory order may exist when: (1) the trial court certifies under Rule 54(b) there is no just reason for delay, or, (2) the order affects a substantial right, which would be lost absent immediate review.

Rule 54(b) permits immediate appeal of a judgment resolving fewer than all claims or parties when the trial court certifies that there is no just reason for delay; without certification, the appellant must demonstrate a substantial right.

Venters v. City of Raleigh · filed 2025-12-17Rule 54(b)

The trial court did not certify for immediate review its order granting Defendant-Developers’ motion to dismiss, therefore, it is Plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate a substantial right.

Rule 54(b) permits an immediate appeal from an order final as to some claims or parties when the trial court certifies that there is no just reason to delay the appeal.

Sargent v. N.C. Bd. of Nursing · filed 2026-01-07Rule 54(b)

Immediate appeal from an interlocutory order may be allowed in several instances, including “(1) if the order is final as to some but not all of the claims or parties and the trial court certifies there is no just reason to delay the appeal pursuant to [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b),] or (2) if the trial court’s decision deprives the appellant of a substantial right” that will be lost absent immediate review pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-277(a) and 7A-27(b)(3)(a). Woody v. Vickrey, 276 N.C. App. 427, 433 (2021) (citation omitted). Here, the trial court did not certify the order under Rule 54(b).

Rule 54(b) certification can permit an interlocutory appeal when the trial court certifies that there is no just reason to delay appeal.

Middle Sound Lookout v. New Hanover Cnty. · filed 2026-02-18Rule 54(b)

Here, the trial court’s Order does not contain a Rule 54(b) certification; therefore, we consider whether the Order affects a substantial right.

A claim is not premature as a compulsory counterclaim merely because the amount of damages is uncertain when the injury and underlying events are known.

Kemp v. Spivey · filed 2004-10-05Rule 13(a)

We are satisfied in the instant case that plaintiff's claim for damages is a compulsory counterclaim with regard to defendants' previously filed third-party claims. ... In the instant case, Kemp was fully aware of the events and circumstances leading to her injury; only the exact amount of injury sustained was speculative. ... Accordingly, the speculative nature of the amount of damages sustained in the instant case did not render the claim premature at the time the third-party complaints were filed.

A defendant preserves objections to service and personal jurisdiction by raising them in the first responsive pleading and need not repeat them in later motions.

Draughon v. Harnett County Board of Education · filed 2004-10-05Rule 12(h)(1)

The record clearly shows that Honeycutt raised the issues of insufficiency of process, service of process, and lack of personal jurisdiction prior to the filing of the motion for costs. As noted above, this preserved those issues. Furthermore, nowhere in our case law do we require a defendant to reassert his jurisdictional defenses in each subsequent motion he files.

Rule 59(b) requires a motion for a new trial to be served within ten days after entry of judgment.

Davis v. Davis · filed 2004-10-05Rule 59(b)

First, the trial court correctly noted motions for new trials under Rule 59(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure must be served within ten (10) days after entry of judgment.

A Rule 59 motion made more than ten days after judgment does not toll the time to appeal.

DUNSTONE FINANCIAL, LLC v. Simmons · filed 2009-02-17Rule 59(b)

Plaintiff did not file its motion within the ten day period following the 30 October 2007 order as required by Rule 59. Therefore, the time for filing notice of appeal from the 30 October 2007 order was not tolled pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3(c)(3), and Plaintiff's notice of appeal was not timely.

Rule 59(b) requires a motion for a new trial to be served within ten days after entry of judgment; an untimely motion does not toll the time to appeal.

LVNV FUNDING, LLC v. Aikens · filed 2009-02-17Rule 59(b)

Plaintiff did not file its motion within the ten day period following the 30 October 2007 order as required by Rule 59. Therefore, the time for filing notice of appeal from the 30 October 2007 order was not tolled pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3(c)(3), and Plaintiff's notice of appeal was not timely.

Rule 59(b) requires a motion for a new trial to be served within ten days after entry of judgment.

Discover Bank v. Altman · filed 2009-02-17Rule 59(b)

Plaintiff did not file its motion within the ten day period following the 30 October 2007 order as required by Rule 59.

Rule 5 governs service of a written notice of appeal in a juvenile matter when the juvenile statute is silent on service; it requires service on each party and permits hand delivery with a certificate of service.

In Re DL · filed 2004-10-19Rule 5(a), (b), (d)

Where the relevant juvenile statute is silent, the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure govern. In re Brown, 141 N.C.App. 550, 551, 539 S.E.2d 366, 368 (2000), cert. denied, 353 N.C. 374, 547 S.E.2d 809 (2001). Rule 5(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "every written notice ... shall be served upon each of the parties...." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 5(a) (2003). Rule 5 provides that such service can be made by hand delivery if, at the time of filing the written notice, a certificate is also filed certifying "the paper was served in the manner prescribed by this rule...." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 5(b) and (d) (2003).

Rule 5(b) permits service of a hearing notice by mailing it to a party's last known address.

DeBRUHL v. DeBRUHL · filed 2005-02-15Rule 5(b)

Additionally, plaintiff complied with the required method for service in that plaintiff mailed this notice to defendant's last known address, which was the same address where defendant had received numerous other court related documents, including the case manager's notice of hearing and certification of judicial assignment sent on 21 November 2002. Notice to defendant was thus sufficient.

Rule 4 does not permit service of a notice of appeal by email.

Bradley v. Cumberland Cty. · filed 2018-11-20Rule 4(j6)

Neither Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Appellate Rules permit service of a notice of appeal by email. Thus, Plaintiff’s service of the notice of appeal was improper.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires findings of fact and separate conclusions of law in a nonjury trial; findings that resolve evidentiary conflicts and permit appellate review satisfy the rule.

IN THE MATTER OF RAC · filed 2004-10-19Rule 52(a)(1)

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court's findings of fact meet the requirements of Rule 52and are sufficiently supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.

Rule 52 requires a finding of fact to reflect the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence; a verbatim quotation of a witness’s prior statements is insufficient.

In Re CW · filed 2007-03-20

Because finding of fact number eight consists primarily of quoted statements purportedly made by the children's mother, it is not a true finding for purposes of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-1109(e) or N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 52 (2005).