N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27

Section 7A-27(b)(3) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order that eliminates a defense because the order affects a substantial right.

Kelley v. Kelley · filed 2017-04-04(b)(3)

Because the trial court’s order eliminated Defendant’s defense to the purported validity of the 2003 Amendment, the order affects a substantial right and is immediately appealable.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits immediate appeal of an interlocutory discovery order that affects a substantial right, even when the arbitration statute does not permit an appeal.

Stokes v. Crumpton · filed 2017-06-09(b)(3)(a)

We hold, therefore, that plaintiff had a right to appeal the trial court’s order denying discovery under the substantial rights analysis of N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(b)(3)(a), and that a right to appeal may exist under section 7A-27 even if the order is not appealable under the arbitration statute itself.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right that would be lost without immediate review.

Bost v. Heller · filed 2015-10-20(b)(3)(a)

Plaintiff’s appeal is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right that cannot be ameliorated on appeal from a final judgment.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) allows immediate review of an interlocutory order affecting the substantial right to proper venue, but that basis for review does not extend to an unrelated jurisdiction argument.

A&D Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Miller · filed 2015-09-15(b)(3)(a)

This appeal, however, is interlocutory. Though the general rule is that “there is no right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders and judgments[,]” Travco Hotels v. Piedmont Natural Gas Co., 332 N.C. 288, 291, 420 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1992), one exception to this rule is where the interlocutory order “affects a substantial right.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(3)(a). ... In conclusion, we hold that we have jurisdiction to consider the merits of any argument by Defendant which touch on his right to have the case heard in the proper venue.

An interlocutory order denying summary judgment on res judicata grounds is not immediately appealable under § 7A-27(d)(1) when the case presents no possibility of inconsistent verdicts.

Sanderford v. Duplin Land Dev., Inc. · filed 2016-08-02(d)(1)

For the foregoing reasons and pursuant to plaintiff’s motion, because the current case presents no possibility of inconsistent verdicts, we dismiss defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s interlocutory order as it does not affect a substantial right.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits immediate appeal of an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right, including a partial summary judgment for a monetary sum in these circumstances.

Clements v. Clements · filed 2014-02-04(d)(1)

We hold under these circumstances that the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor affects a substantial right and is thus immediately appealable.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits immediate appeal of an interlocutory order when delay would jeopardize a substantial right; speculative harm from a possible future subpoena does not qualify.

In Re Accutane Litigation · filed 2014-04-01(b)(3)(a)

However, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits immediate appeal from an interlocutory order that “[a]ffects a substantial right.” ... We conclude that the trial court’s order was interlocutory, that Dr. Kappelman has not identified any substantial right that would be jeopardized by delay of appeal, and that the issues raised by Dr. Kappelman all pertain to possible ramifications of a hypothetical subpoena that might or might not ever be issued, and thus do not present issues that are ripe for review.

Section 7A-27(b)(3) allows an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right, but a possible sale or encumbrance of disputed property does not establish such a right.

Exum v. Exum · filed 2014-04-01(b)(3)

As a result of the fact that the trial court did not certify the order that Defendants seek to challenge on 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 represent a final judgment as to either a claim or a party, we lack the authority to reach the merits of Defendants’ challenges to the trial court’s order unless the challenged order falls within one of the exceptions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(3). ... As a result, we conclude that Defendants have failed to establish that a substantial right will be lost in the absence of immediate appellate review of the trial court’s interlocutory order, a determination that requires us to dismiss that portion of Defendants’ appeal which seeks immediate review of the trial court’s determination with respect to the proper construction of the relevant provision of Mr. Exum, Sr.’s, will.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(e) permits immediate appeals of certain interlocutory family law orders, but the 2013 amendment did not apply to orders entered before it took effect.

Spencer v. Spencer · filed 2014-01-21(b)(3)(e)

Nonetheless, we recognize that the General Assembly has recently “amend[ed] the laws pertaining to interlocutory appeals as related to family law,” 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws 286, 286, ch. 411, including N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(b), which now provides that an appeal “lies of right directly to” this Court from any interlocutory order or judgment of a superior or district court in a civil action which determines a claim prosecuted under N.C.G.S. § 50-19.1. ... However, because the legislation that would permit husband to immediately appeal from the court’s 22 January 2013 interlocutory order was not effective until eight months after the trial court entered the order from which husband now seeks to appeal, see 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws 286, 287, ch. 411, § 3, we dismiss husband’s appeal.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when overlapping factual issues create a risk of inconsistent verdicts that would affect a substantial right.

EAST CAMP, LLC v. Spruill · filed 2009-06-02(d)(1)

However, an appeal of an interlocutory order is permitted pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d)(1) "if the trial court's decision deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be lost absent immediate review." Id. (citing Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994)). ... Because there are overlapping factual issues, there exists the potential for inconsistent verdicts. Therefore, the trial court's judgment on the pleadings affects a substantial right of Defendants and thus Defendants' appeal is properly before us.

Section 7A-27(b) does not permit an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when the appellant makes no claim that the order affects a substantial right.

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

We further hold that N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-277 and 7A-27(b) (2007) do not provide Plaintiffs with any right to appeal these interlocutory orders, as Plaintiffs have made no claim or argument that either order affects a substantial right.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) allows immediate appeal of an interlocutory order when waiting would cause the loss of a substantial right; a desire to avoid a possible new trial does not qualify.

Tands, Inc. v. Coastal Plains Realty, Inc. · filed 2009-11-17(d)(1)

The possibility of a protracted litigation cycle is a risk inherent in our legal system, and the desire to truncate the process does not give rise to a substantial right.

Section 7A-27(d) allows an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right; the order requiring return of the memo did not qualify.

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

Similarly, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d) allows an appeal to be taken from an “interlocutory order or judgment” that “[a]ffects a substantial right[.]” ... Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to an immediate appeal as of right from the trial court’s order.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right, including when separate trials on the same issues could produce inconsistent verdicts.

Regions Bank v. Baxley Commercial Properties, LLC · filed 2010-08-03(d)

Thus, if the default against BDI were reversed, there would be another trial on the same issues as to BDI, which could result in a verdict which is not consistent with the verdict in the earlier trial as to defendants Baxley and BCP. Therefore, this interlocutory appeal affects a substantial right, and, accordingly, we address the merits of defendant BDI’s appeal.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right that would be lost without immediate review.

Estate of Spell v. Ghanem · filed 2005-12-20(d)(1)

We conclude that no substantial right will be lost by failure to allow immediate review of the trial court’s order allowing plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Accordingly, defendant’s appeal must be dismissed.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when delaying review could lead to separate trials with inconsistent verdicts on the same issue.

Estate of Harvey Ex Rel. Harvey v. Kore-Kut, Inc. · filed 2006-11-07(d)(1)

Denial of appeal from the motion to strike or dismiss the defense of the employer’s negligence could result in two juries in separate trials reaching different resolutions of this same issue if subsequent trial on the merits and appeal were successful. Therefore, a substantial right is affected and the appeal from such order shall be granted.

Section 7A-27 permits an immediate appeal from the denial of summary judgment only if the denial affects a substantial right.

Williams v. Allen · filed 2007-03-06

"The denial of a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not immediately appealable unless it affects a substantial right. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A-27 [(2005)]." ... In the instant case, plaintiff fails to articulate any substantial right that will be lost by delay of his appeal from the denial of his motion for summary judgment on the issue of defendants' liability for trespass and negligence. Accordingly, we dismiss as interlocutory plaintiff's appeal from this ruling.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right, including a preliminary injunction entered without notice.

Perry v. BAXLEY DEVELOPMENT, INC. · filed 2008-01-15(d)(1)

Accordingly, we hold that a preliminary injunction entered without notice affects a “substantial right” and is immediately appealable to this Court.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right that would be lost or inadequately protected without immediate review; avoiding trial alone is not such a right.

Anderson v. Atlantic Casualty Insurance · filed 1999-09-07(d)(1)

Under G.S. §§ l-277(a) and 7A-27(d)(l), an otherwise interlocutory order may be appealed upon a showing that: (1) the order affects a right that is indeed “substantial,” and (2) “enforcement of that right, absent immediate appeal, must be ‘lost, prejudiced or be less than adequately protected by exception to entry of the interlocutory order.’ ” ... Avoidance of trial is not a substantial right entitling a party to immediate appellate review.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an interlocutory appeal when the order affects a substantial right that would be lost or inadequately protected without immediate review.

Country Club of Johnston County v. USF & G · filed 1999-10-05(d)(1)

Under the second "avenue," the substantial right exception, see N.C.G.S. § 1-277(a) (1996) and N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(d)(1) (1995), an otherwise interlocutory order may be appealed upon a showing by the appellant that: (1) the order affects a right that is indeed "substantial," and (2) "enforcement of that right, absent immediate appeal, [will] be `lost, prejudiced or be less than adequately protected by exception to entry of the interlocutory order.'" First Atl. Mgmt. Corp. v. Dunlea Realty Co., 131 N.C.App. 242, 250, 507 S.E.2d 56, 62 (1998) (quoting J & B Slurry Seal Co. v. Mid-South Aviation, Inc., 88 N.C.App. 1, 6, 362 S.E.2d 812, 815 (1987)).

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order when the order affects a substantial right that would be lost or inadequately protected without immediate review.

Country Club of Johnston County, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · filed 1999-10-05(d)(1)

Under the second “avenue,” the substantial right exception, see N.C.G.S. § l-277(a) (1996) and N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(d)(l) (1995), an otherwise interlocutory order may be appealed upon a showing by the appellant that: (1) the order affects a right that is indeed “substantial,” and (2) “enforcement of that right, absent immediate appeal, [will] be ‘lost, prejudiced or be less than adequately protected by exception to entry of the interlocutory order.’ ” First Atl. Mgmt. Corp. v. Dunlea Realty Co., 131 N.C. App. 242, 250, 507 S.E.2d 56, 62 (1998) (quoting J & B Slurry Seal Co. v. Mid-South Aviation, Inc., 88 N.C. App. 1, 6, 362 S.E.2d 812, 815 (1987)).

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal when an interlocutory discovery order requires disclosure of material subject to a nonfrivolous claim of statutory privilege.

Sharpe v. Worland · filed 1999-12-03(d)(1)

Accordingly, when, as here, a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right under sections l-277(a) and 7A-27(d)(l).

Section 7A-27 does not permit an interlocutory appeal of a condemnation order unifying the landowner’s remaining tracts because that order does not affect a substantial right.

Department of Transportation v. Rowe · filed 1999-12-03

Defendants contest only the unification of the four remaining tracts, not what parcel of land is being taken or to whom that land belongs. Thus, we hold that the trial court’s interlocutory order does not affect any substantial right of these defendants.

An interlocutory order dismissing counterclaims does not qualify for immediate appeal under the substantial-right exception when the counterclaims have no overlapping factual issues with the remaining claim.

Murphy v. Coastal Physician Group, Inc. · filed 2000-08-01(d)

We find no overlapping factual issues between Murphy's complaint and Coastal's counterclaims, and we do not believe the order appealed from deprives Coastal of a substantial right which would be jeopardized absent a review prior to a final determination on the merits. The trial court's order for partial summary judgment in favor of Murphy as to Coastal's four counterclaims is not excepted from the general rule that an interlocutory order is not immediately appealable, and therefore we grant Murphy's motion to dismiss Coastal's appeal.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an immediate appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity because the denial affects a substantial right.

RPR & Associates, Inc. v. State · filed 2000-08-15(d)

However, when that denial affects some substantial right of the appellant, this Court will entertain an immediate appeal. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A-27(d) (1999). ... Because the trial court's denial of the motions to dismiss affected a substantial right of defendants, we hold that their appeal is properly before this Court.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right; the burden of continuing to defend an action does not establish one.

Interior Distributors, Inc. v. Autry · filed 2000-11-07(d)

The orders are therefore interlocutory. ... First, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d), an interlocutory order is appealable if the order “affects a substantial right.” ... This attempt at persuading this Court that a substantial right of defendants will be adversely affected absent immediate review fails to satisfy defendant’s “ ‘burden to present argument in [their] brief to this Court to support acceptance of the appeal.’ ” ... Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order when delaying review could require separate trials of the same factual issues.

Phillips v. Restaurant Management of Carolina, L.P. · filed 2001-09-18(d)

However, pertinent to this appeal, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d) (1999) permits an appeal from an interlocutory order that affects “a substantial right which may be lost or prejudiced if not reviewed prior to final judgment.” ... On appeal, the trooper contends that his claims against Restaurant Management and Taco Bell involve issues of fact common to his claims against Jones and that if this appeal is dismissed as interlocutory, separate trials will be required to determine the same factual issues. We agree with him.

Section 7A-27 permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right; a liability ruling that leaves damages unresolved does not qualify.

Steadman v. Steadman · filed 2002-02-19(d)(1)

Defendant’s appeal in the present case is interlocutory, does not affect a substantial right, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Section 7A-27 permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right.

Duquesne Energy, Inc. v. Shiloh Industrial Contractors, Inc. · filed 2002-03-05

Although interlocutory orders are generally not immediately appealable, a party may appeal from an interlocutory order which affects a substantial right. ... Plaintiff’s appeal in the present case is interlocutory, does not affect a substantial right, and is therefore dismissed.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right the appellant may lose before final judgment.

Ratchford v. C.C. Mangum Inc. · filed 2002-05-07(d)

Nevertheless, an appeal from an interlocutory order may be proper when the order from which appeal is taken affects a substantial right of the appellant. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(d) (1999); 1-277 (1999). ... Plaintiff has shown, in his brief, no substantial right which may be lost if the Commission’s opinion and award is not reviewed before a final decision.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when delaying review would risk injury to a substantial right.

McColl v. Anderson · filed 2002-08-06(d)(1)

We conclude the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction does not deprive plaintiff of a substantial right. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal is granted.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when delaying review would cause the appellant to lose a substantial right.

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. v. Duke Power Co. · filed 2002-12-31(d)(1)

An appeal is, however, permitted if (1) the order is final as to some but not all of the claims or parties, and the trial court certifies that there is no just reason to delay the appeal, N.C. R. Civ. P. 54(b); or (2) the trial court’s decision deprives the appellant of a substantial right that would be lost absent immediate review, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d)(1). ... However, we are not convinced that there is a risk of inconsistent verdicts here. ... For the reasons set forth above, we dismiss MEUS’s appeal as interlocutory.

Section 7A-27(d) permits immediate appeal of an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right which may be lost without review before final judgment.

Evans v. Evans · filed 2003-06-17(d)

Secondly, an interlocutory order may be immediately appealed if “the order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be jeopardized absent a review prior to a final determination on the merits.” Southern Uniform Rentals v. Iowa Nat’l Mutual Ins. Co., 90 N.C. App. 738, 740, 370 S.E.2d 76, 78 (1988); N.C.G.S. § 1-277(a) (2001); N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(d) (2001). ... We conclude that defendant has appealed from an interlocutory order, which does not affect a substantial right, and from which there is no right to immediate appeal.

Section 7A-27 permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right; the burden of continuing litigation after denial of a Rule 41(a)(1) motion does not establish one.

Allen v. Stone · filed 2003-12-02(d)(1)

While interlocutory orders are generally not immediately appealable, a party may appeal from an interlocutory order which affects a substantial right. ... Because defendant has not met his burden of showing this Court that the order deprives him of a substantial right which would be jeopardized absent our review prior to a final determination on the merits, defendant’s appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right; litigation costs alone do not qualify.

Ward v. Wake Co. Board of Education · filed 2004-11-02(d)(1)

Although ordinarily a party may not appeal an interlocutory order, appeal is allowed where denial of immediate review would jeopardize a “substantial right” of the appellant. N.C.G.S. § 7A-27 (d)(1) (2003) (allowing appeal of right to this Court from “any interlocutory order or judgment” that “[a]ffects a substantial right[.]”). ... We also conclude that no substantial right will be lost by delaying appeal until final resolution of plaintiff’s claims.

Section 7A-27 permits an interlocutory appeal when an order affects a substantial right, but an order deciding liability while leaving damages unresolved does not qualify.

Johnston v. Royal Indemnity Company · filed 1992-10-06

While G.S. § 1-277 and § 7A-27 allow appeals of interlocutory orders which “affect a substantial right” of the party seeking to appeal, the Supreme Court has held that an order determining only the issue of liability and leaving unresolved other issues such as that of damages cannot be held to “affect a substantial right” as: ... Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an immediate appeal from the denial of summary judgment based on res judicata when the denial may affect a substantial right.

Bockweg v. Anderson · filed 1993-04-08(d)

Therefore, we hold that the denial of a motion for summary judgment based on the defense of res judicata may affect a substantial right, making the order immediately appealable. N.C.G.S. § 1-277 (1983); N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(d) (1989).

Section 7A-27(d) permits an interlocutory appeal when delaying review would prejudice a substantial right.

Cagle v. Teachy · filed 1993-07-20(d)

For the reasons stated, therefore, we hold no “substantial interest” exception is present in this case to permit appeal under G.S. § 1-277 and G.S. § 7A-27 of the court’s order denying defendant’s summary judgment.

Section 7A-27 allows an immediate appeal from a preliminary injunction when the order affects a substantial right that could be lost before final judgment.

Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro · filed 1993-07-20

Thus, in addressing the “threshold question” presented by this appeal, ... we conclude that given the important First Amendment principles at issue, substantial rights of the defendants have been affected.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when delaying review could prejudice a substantial right, including the right to avoid separate trials involving identical issues.

Dalton Moran Shook Inc. v. Pitt Development Co. · filed 1994-03-01(d)

Second, an interlocutory order not appealable under Rule 54(b) may nevertheless be appealed pursuant to G.S. § 1-277 and G.S. § 7A-27(d) which permit an appeal of an interlocutory order which (1) affects a substantial right, or (2) in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which appeal might be taken, or (3) discontinues the action, or (4) grants or refuses a new trial. ... Thus, dismissal of the present appeal might prejudice plaintiff’s right to avoid separate trials involving the identical issues. Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal is denied.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) does not allow an immediate appeal from partial summary judgment denying a claim for punitive damages under the substantial-right exception.

Moose v. Nissan of Statesville, Inc. · filed 1994-07-05(d)(1)

Despite the absence of certification by the trial court, a second avenue to appellate review is available if the interlocutory order qualifies under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 (1983) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d)(1) (1989). ... Further, based upon the reasoning in Green, we take this opportunity to eliminate specifically the application of the doctrine of substantial rights to cases wherein partial summary judgment has been granted denying a claim for punitive damages.

Section 7A-27 permits an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order when delaying the appeal would affect a substantial right.

Jarrell v. Coastal Emergency Services of the Carolinas, Inc. · filed 1995-12-19

This appeal is interlocutory and falls under no applicable exception. Therefore, it is in violation of G.S. 1-277, G.S. 7A-27, and Rule 54(b) and must be dismissed.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an interlocutory appeal without trial court certification when the order affects a substantial right.

Troy v. Tucker · filed 1997-05-06(d)(1)

A party may, however, appeal an interlocutory order even where the trial court fails to provide certification so long as the order affects a substantial right. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d)(l). ... In addition, defendants will not suffer the loss of a substantial right absent an appeal.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right; an interim equitable distribution order is not immediately appealable when an appeal after final judgment adequately protects that right.

Hunter v. Hunter · filed 1997-07-01(d)(1)

An interlocutory decree is immediately appealable only if permitted by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 (1996), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (1990), or N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d) (1995). The only possible basis on which the present order could be immediately appealable under any of these statutes is on the ground it affects a substantial right. ... In keeping with the policy discouraging fragmentary appeals, we conclude that the present interim order does not affect a substantial right and that plaintiff’s rights will be adequately protected by an appeal timely taken from the final equitable distribution judgment.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal based on a substantial right only when delaying review would leave that right lost, prejudiced, or inadequately protected.

Barrett v. Hyldburg · filed 1997-08-05(d)(1)

Appeal of an interlocutory order based upon impairment of a substantial right requires a finding (1) that the right in question qualifies as “substantial,” and (2) that, absent immediate appeal, the right will be “lost, prejudiced or be less than adequately protected by exception to entry of the interlocutory order.”

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an interlocutory appeal when delaying review would leave a substantial right inadequately protected.

Town Center Associates v. Y & C Corp. · filed 1997-09-02(d)(1)

We next consider whether defendant may pursue appeal pursuant to G.S. §§ 1-277 and 7A-27. Only the substantial right exception under the sections is potentially applicable here.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an interlocutory appeal when an order affects a substantial right; denial of summary judgment does not qualify.

Vera v. Five Crow Promotions, Inc. · filed 1998-09-01(d)

We may, relying on G.S. 1-277 and 7A-27(d), allow plaintiffs appeal if the order affects a “substantial right.” ... Plaintiff has a substantial right in having her appeal of the summary judgment orders entered in favor of Griffith and Stuart heard prior to the final resolution of her action against Five Crow. We hold, therefore, that plaintiff’s appeal is properly before this Court. ... A denial of summary judgment, however, does not affect a substantial right and is not immediately appealable.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory judgment only when delaying review could prejudice a substantial right.

Stafford v. Stafford · filed 1999-05-04(d)(1)

Defendant argues in the alternative that the judgment affects a substantial right and that he is entitled to pursue this appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A-27(d)(1). To be immediately appealable on that basis, defendant has the burden of showing that: (1) the judgment affects a right that is substantial; and (2) the deprivation of that substantial right will potentially work injury to him if not corrected before appeal from final judgment. ... Thus, no substantial right of defendant would be prejudiced absent immediate appellate review of the trial court's judgment.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal when an interlocutory order may affect a substantial right; partial sovereign immunity, which limits damages without barring the claim, does not justify immediate review.

Anderson ex rel. Jerome v. Town of Andrews · filed 1999-05-04(d)(1)

A party may, however, be entitled to immediate appellate review, even in instances where the trial court has not provided certification under N.C.R. Civ. P. 54, where the order potentially works injury to a substantial right. Troy v. Tucker, 126 N.C. App. 213, 215, 484 S.E.2d 98, 99 (1997) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d)(l)). ... In sum, since defendant town cannot show the affectation of a substantial right, this appeal is dismissed.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an immediate appeal from summary judgment for fewer than all defendants when separate proceedings could produce inconsistent verdicts and affect a substantial right.

Camp v. Leonard · filed 1999-06-15(d)

Entry of judgment for fewer than all the defendants is not a final judgment and may not be appealed in the absence of certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) unless the entry of summary judgment affects a substantial right. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 (1996); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (1990); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d) (1995). ... Because several different proceedings may bring about inconsistent verdicts relating to the cause of plaintiffs’ injuries, we find that plaintiffs have a substantial right to have the liability of all defendants determined in one proceeding, and therefore we address their appeal.

Section 7A-27 permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when delaying review would cause the appellant to lose a substantial right.

Barber v. Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society · filed 1988-02-16

It is axiomatic that no appeal lies from an interlocutory order or ruling of the trial judge, and will be dismissed as fragmentary and premature unless the order or ruling deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he would lose if the order or ruling is not reviewed before, final judgment. ... The order allowing the original plaintiff to amend her complaint does not deprive appellant of a substantial right which would be lost if not reviewed before final judgment on the original plaintiffs complaint. Therefore, defendant’s appeal from that portion of the trial court order allowing the original plaintiff to amend her complaint is dismissed as being premature.

Section 7A-27(d) allows an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when the order affects a substantial right.

Vinson v. Wallace · filed 1989-11-21(d)

Under the circumstances we treat it as a joint appeal and dismiss it since it is unauthorized in any event; for the order is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right of either defendant, G.S. 1-277(a); G.S. 7A-27(d); Buffington v. Buffington, 69 N.C. App. 483, 317 S.E.2d 97 (1984), or any other kind of right so far as the record indicates.

Section 7A-27, read with § 1-277, permits an interlocutory appeal when the order deprives the appellant of a substantial right that would be lost without review before final judgment.

State v. Jones · filed 1984-04-03

G.S. 1-277 and 7A-27, taken together, provide that no appeal lies to an appellate court from an interlocutory order unless such order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he would lose if the order is not reviewed before final judgment. ... We hold that defendant's appeal from the court's order denying his motion to dismiss is premature and must be dismissed.

Section 7A-27 permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when delaying review would cause the appellant to lose a substantial right.

Thompson v. Newman · filed 1985-05-07

The orders before this Court are plainly interlocutory and do not necessitate immediate review. “Pursuant to G.S. § 1-277 and G.S. § 7A-27, no appeal lies to an appellate court from an interlocutory order or ruling of a trial judge unless such order or ruling deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he would lose absent a review prior to final determination.”

Section 7A-27(d) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory civil order affecting a substantial right without a Rule 54(b) finding that there is no just reason for delay.

Oestreicher v. American National Stores, Inc. · filed 1976-06-17(d)

The Court of Appeals was in error in dismissing this appeal. We hold that the 1967 General Assembly did not restrict the right of appeal provided by G.S. 1-277 and 7A-27(d) by engrafting Rule 54(b) requirements upon them.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an appeal from an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right, even without a Rule 54(b) determination.

Newton v. Standard Fire Insurance · filed 1976-11-04(d)

Since the order of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's claim for punitive damages did affect a "substantial right" of the plaintiff and is therefore appealable under both G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27(d), the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing plaintiff's appeal.

Section 7A-27 permits an immediate appeal when delaying review until final judgment would reduce a party's claim or defense or cause other direct injury.

Nichols v. State Employees' Credit Union · filed 1980-04-15

Plaintiff will not be denied a "substantial right" under G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27 by delaying his appeal until all matters in issue have been resolved at trial.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right and would cause injury if review waited until final judgment.

Cook v. Export Leaf Tobacco Co. · filed 1980-06-03(d)

We believe the rule from these cases is that if a trial court enters an order which affects a substantial right and will work injury if not corrected before appeal from a final judgment, it is appealable under G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27(d).

Section 7A-27(d) allows an appeal of right from an interlocutory civil judgment that affects a substantial right.

Wachovia Realty Investments v. Housing, Inc. · filed 1977-03-07(d)

By virtue of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54, the judgment rendered by the Superior Court was not a final judgment, but by virtue of G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27(d) it is, nevertheless, appealable and the Court of Appeals was in error in dismissing the appeal of Housing, Inc., without passing upon the merits thereof.

Section 7A-27 allows an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when the order deprives the appellant of a substantial right that would be lost without review before final judgment.

Whyburn v. Norwood · filed 1978-08-15

G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27 in effect provide that no appeal lies to an appellate court from an interlocutory ruling or order of the trial court unless such ruling or order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he would lose if the ruling or order is not reviewed before final judgment. ... We do not think the orders of Judge Hobgood deprive plaintiffs of substantial rights which they would lose if the orders are not reviewed before final judgment. Consequently, the appeals from said orders are dismissed.

Section 7A-27 permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when it affects a substantial right that would be injured before final judgment.

Godley Auction Co., Inc. v. Myers · filed 1979-04-03

These rules derive in part from G.S. 1-277 and are embodied in part in the more recently enacted G.S. 7A-27. ... We hold that the interlocutory orders of the trial court affect no substantial right of the defendant and will work no injury to him before an appeal from the final judgment.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an interlocutory appeal when the order deprives the appellant of a substantial right that would be lost without review before final judgment.

Clark v. Clark · filed 1979-06-19(d)

The effect of both G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27(d) is to provide that no appeal will lie to an appellate court from an interlocutory order or ruling of a trial court unless such order or ruling deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he will lose if the order or ruling is not reviewed before final judgment.

Section 7A-27 permits an interlocutory appeal when the ruling deprives the appellant of a substantial right that would be lost without review before final judgment.

First Union National Bank v. Olive · filed 1979-08-07

However, it is well established in this State that no appeal lies from an interlocutory order or ruling unless such ruling deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be lost if the ruling were not reviewed before final judgment. G.S. 1-277, G.S. 7A-27.

Section 7A-27 allows an interlocutory appeal when the ruling deprives the appellant of a substantial right that would otherwise be lost before final judgment.

Citicorp Person-To-Person Financial Center, Inc. v. Stallings 601 Sales, Inc. · filed 1980-10-07

Finally, there is no appeal from an interlocutory ruling of a trial court unless such ruling deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he would otherwise lose unless the ruling is reviewed on appeal prior to final judgment. G.S. 7A-27 and G.S. 1-277; Funderburk v. Justice, 25 N.C. App. 655, 214 S.E. 2d 310 (1975). ... The interlocutory order giving immediate possession of the collateral to plaintiffs has affected no substantial right of defendant.

Section 7A-27(d) permits immediate appeal of an interlocutory order if it affects a substantial right, effectively determines the action and prevents a later appeal, discontinues the action, or grants or refuses a new trial.

Bacon v. Leatherwood · filed 1981-06-16(d)

Nor does plaintiff’s case fall within the exceptions of G.S. 1-277 or G.S. 7A-27(d). We are unaware of, and plaintiff has not indicated, how the trial court’s order has affected any “substantial right” of plaintiff’s or how the order could have in effect determined this action, prevented a judgment from which an appeal might be taken, discontinued the action, or granted or refused a new trial.

Section 7A-27 allows an immediate appeal from a civil interlocutory order affecting a substantial right.

State v. Fayetteville Street Christian School · filed 1980-02-01(d)(1)

In the case before us, we find that Judge Smith’s refusal to allow defendants’ motion to dismiss based upon grounds (1) and (2) above did not finally determine any issue in the case or threaten to impair any right of defendants that could not be later protected. As to those grounds, then, the denial of the motion to dismiss was clearly an interlocutory order from which any purported appeal is premature. G.S. 1-277; G.S. 7A-27.

Section 7A-27(d) allows an appeal from an interlocutory order when a substantial right is involved.

BLUE RIDGE SPORTCYCLE CO., INC. v. Schroader · filed 1981-08-04(d)

Since the trial court made no finding under Rule 54(b) that there was no just reason for delay, we must determine if plaintiffs had the statutory right of appeal under G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27(d) because a substantial right is involved. We conclude that there is no substantial right involved and that the appeal is premature.

Section 7A-27 generally allows an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order only if it affects a substantial right and delay until final judgment is likely to injure the appellant.

Berger v. Berger · filed 1984-04-03

Immediate appeal is generally allowed only from those orders affecting a substantial right and likely to result in injury to the appellant if not corrected before appeal from the final judgment. Love v. Moore, 305 N.C. 575, 291 S.E. 2d 141, rehearing denied, 306 N.C. 393 (1982); see G.S. 1-277; G.S. 7A-27.

Section 7A-27 permits an interlocutory appeal when delaying review would affect a substantial right.

Brown v. Brown · filed 1985-10-01

The second channel to an appeal is by way of G.S. 1-277 or G.S. 7A-27. An appeal will be permitted under these statutes if a substantial right would be affected by not allowing appeal before final judgment. ... There is no substantial right involved in the present case.

Section 7A-27(d) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when delaying review until final judgment would cause the appellant to lose a substantial right.

Beam v. Morrow · filed 1985-11-19(d)

The “other statutes” are N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 (1983) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d) (1981), which allow an immediate appeal from a judicial determination which deprives appellant of a substantial right which he would lose if the ruling is not reviewed on appeal before final judgment.

Section 7A-27(d)(1) permits an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order when waiting for final judgment would leave a substantial right lost or inadequately protected.

Miller v. Swann Plantation Development Co. · filed 1991-01-15(d)(1)

Finally, there are exceptions to the Rule 54(b) procedure for appeal of an order, which are set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 (1983) and G.S. § 7A-27(d). None of these exceptions apply here, except possibly whether the decree involves a substantial right that would be lost, prejudiced, or less than adequately protected if an immediate appeal is not permitted. ... We simply fail to see how defendants’ claimed right to hold title to the property free from this encumbrance “will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected” if the order is not reviewed before final judgment. ... Accordingly, defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

Section 7A-27(d) does not permit an interlocutory appeal based on an insurer’s duty to defend when the underlying litigation has concluded.

Paradigm Consultants, Ltd. v. Builders Mutual Insurance · filed 2013-07-16(d)

Thus, in the instant case, as opposed to Lambe, Paradigm’s right to be defended by its insurer is not a substantial right under either N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 or N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(d) which would give rise to the right to bring an interlocutory appeal.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right; an order setting aside a consent judgment so the parties can try just compensation does not qualify.

N.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Laxmi Hotels of Spring Lake, Inc. · filed 2018-05-15(b)(3)(a)

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s order setting aside the parties’ Consent Judgment does not affect a substantial right and is therefore not immediately appealable.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits an interlocutory appeal involving a rejected res judicata defense when the appellant explains how the order risks inconsistent verdicts or otherwise affects a substantial right on the facts of the case.

Denney v. Wardson Constr., Inc. · filed 2019-02-19(b)(3)(a)

Applying this controlling line of precedent, we again reaffirm that an appellant seeking to appeal an interlocutory order involving res judicata must include in the statement of the grounds for appellate review an explanation of how the challenged order would create a risk of inconsistent verdicts or otherwise affect a substantial right based on the particular facts of that case.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits an interlocutory appeal when an order affects a substantial right, including the State’s ability to enforce its statutes and protect its budget from potentially severe costs.

Lake v. State Health Plan For Teachers & State Emps. · filed 2019-03-05(b)(3)(a)

Because Defendants are enjoined from enforcing duly-enacted statutory provisions requiring state retirees to pay premiums for certain levels of health coverage, and the cost of this premium-free health insurance at those higher levels could severely impact the state budget, we allow this interlocutory appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(3)(a) (2017).

Section 7A-27(b)(2) permits immediate appeal of an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right, which the appellant must demonstrate.

SR Auto Transp., Inc. v. Adam's Auto Grp. · filed 2023-01-17(b)(2)

An appeal may also be taken to this Court from “any interlocutory order or judgment of a superior court or district court in a civil action or proceeding that . . . [a]ffects a substantial right.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(2) (2021). ... Thus, Defendants’ appeal in this case is interlocutory, and Defendant has not demonstrated any substantial right would be lost absent immediate appeal. Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to review this matter on immediate appeal.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) allows an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right; the size of an attorney fee award alone does not establish such a right.

Arrington v. Arrington · filed 2025-05-07(b)(3)(a)

North Carolina General Statute Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) provides that “appeal lies of right directly to the Court of Appeals . . . [f]rom any interlocutory order or judgment” that affects a “substantial right.” ... Even if we assume the amount of fees ordered is a “significant amount of money” to Defendants, this factor alone does not establish deprivation of a “substantial right” which, in accordance with our Supreme Court’s holding in Wing II, “must potentially work injury if not corrected before appeal from final judgment.”

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits an immediate appeal from a superior court’s interlocutory order affecting a substantial right, but denial of a motion to compel arbitration does not affect such a right if no valid arbitration agreement exists.

Bilfinger Inc. v. Cargill · filed 2025-04-02(b)(3)(a)

Thus, if a valid agreement to arbitrate does not exist, Defendant has failed to show a substantial right is affected and this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the trial court’s interlocutory order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

Section 7A-27(b)(3) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right; the appellant must show that the appeal affects such a right.

Price v. Yuengling · filed 2025-07-02(b)(3)

Because the orders were not certified, and Plaintiff has not shown that his appeal affects a substantial right, we dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right; convenience of litigation alone does not qualify.

Venters v. City of Raleigh · filed 2025-12-17(b)(3)(a)

Second, interlocutory orders are immediately appealable “when the challenged order affects a substantial right.” Denney v. Wardson Constr., Inc., 264 N.C. App. 15, 17, 824 S.E.2d 436, 438 (2019); see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(3)(a) (2023). ... Nevertheless, convenience of litigation is not a substantial right. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not established a substantial right and we dismiss their appeal as interlocutory.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order that affects a substantial right, including the right to use and control assets.

Southland Nat'l Ins. Corp. v. Lindberg · filed 2025-12-17(b)(3)(a)

Accordingly, Defendants’ substantial right to use and control their assets is affected by the Re-Modified TRO and the 29 July 2024 Order, and this Court has jurisdiction to review Defendants’ appeal from the Re-Modified TRO and the 29 July 2024 Order.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order when the appellant shows that delaying review would cause the loss of a substantial right.

Byrd v. Avco Corp. · filed 2026-03-20(b)(3)(a)

Thus, so long as the appealing party carries his or her burden of demonstrating that the interlocutory order affects a substantial right which will be lost absent immediate appellate review, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over that appeal even in the absence of a Rule 54(b) certification.

Section 7A-27(b)(3) permits immediate appeal of an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right, but an order poses no basis for immediate review when waiting for final judgment risks no injury.

Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Lindberg · filed 2026-04-15(b)(3)

Immediate review of interlocutory orders is available, however, in limited circumstances. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(3) (2025). For example, we may review an interlocutory order or judgment if it “[a]ffects a substantial right.” Id. ... The Order does not affect a substantial right because Defendant suffers no risk of injury absent immediate review. We therefore dismiss Defendant’s appeal.

Section 7A-27(b)(3)(a) permits an immediate appeal from an interlocutory Rule 37(b) sanctions order that affects a substantial right.

Delene v. Kean · filed 2026-05-20(b)(3)(a)

Despite the interlocutory nature of Plaintiff’s appeal, the order imposing sanctions affects a substantial right, and thus is immediately appealable.

Section 7A-27(a1) makes whether a trial court order holds a legislative act facially invalid on constitutional grounds relevant to the appeal route.

North Carolina State Board of Education v. State of North Carolina · filed 2016-06-09(a1)

Defendants’ Petitions for Writ of Certiorari are allowed for the limited purpose of vacating the order entered by the Court of Appeals on 2 March 2016 allowing Plaintiff-Appellee State Board of Education’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Order entered by Judge Paul G. Gessner in this case on 2 July 2015 did not “hold[] that an act of the General Assembly is facially invalid on the basis that the act violates the North Carolina Constitution or federal,” N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(al), and remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of defendants’ challenges to the validity of the trial court’s order on the merits.

Section 7A-27(a1) provides an appeal of right from an order holding an act of the General Assembly facially invalid under the North Carolina Constitution or federal law.

N.C. State Bd. of Educ. v. State · filed 2016-06-09(a1)

Defendants' Petitions for Writ of Certiorari are allowed for the limited purpose of vacating the order entered by the Court of Appeals on 2 March 2016 allowing Plaintiff-Appellee State Board of Education's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Order entered by Judge Paul G. Gessner in this case on 2 July 2015 did not "hold[ ] that an act of the General Assembly is facially invalid on the basis that the act violates the North Carolina Constitution or federal," N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(al), and remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of defendants' challenges to the validity of the trial court's order on the merits.

Section 7A-27(a1) allows a direct appeal to the Supreme Court only from an order that holds an act of the General Assembly facially unconstitutional, whether the order is final or interlocutory.

Town of Boone v. State of North Carolina · filed 2015-11-06(a1)

According to the plain text of the statute under which appeal has been sought, N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a1) (2014), appeal of right lies directly to this Court only “from [an] order or judgment of a court, either final or interlocutory, that holds that an act of the General Assembly is facially” unconstitutional.

Section 7A-27 governs appeals of right in ordinary civil actions; when it controls an appeal from the Industrial Commission, its references to courts include the Commission.

In re: Smith · filed 2016-02-16

We note that because, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-426.53(f) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-293, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 controls the appeal in this matter, the Industrial Commission must be included when N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 refers to “court,” “trial court,” “district court,” or “superior court.”

Section 7A-27 includes the Industrial Commission within its references to courts when it governs an appeal under the Compensation Program.

In re Hughes · filed 2016-02-16

We note that because, pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 143B-426.53(f) and N.C. Gen.Stat. § 143-293, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A-27 controls the appeal in this matter, the Industrial Commission must be included when N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A-27 refers to "court," "trial court," "district court," or "superior court."

Section 7A-27(a)(2) sends appeals of right from final judgments in mandatory complex business cases designated on or after 1 October 2014 directly to the Supreme Court; an appellant must show the designation date to establish appellate jurisdiction.

Grasinger v. Williams · filed 2016-07-05(a)(2)

Effective 1 October 2014, our General Assembly amended N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27, transferring jurisdiction over an appeal from a case designated as complex business from this Court to our Supreme Court. ... This change to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a) applies to “actions designated as mandatory complex business cases on or after” 1 October 2014. ... When a party appeals an order or judgment from an action designated as complex business, he or she bears the burden of showing the actual designation date.

Section 7A-27(a)(2) gives a direct appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court from a final judgment in a mandatory complex business case.

Christenbury Eye Ctr., P.A. v. Medflow, Inc. · filed 2016-03-15(a)(2)

Therefore, this case is, in fact, governed by the 2014 amendments to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over Christenbury’s appeal, and as a result, the appeal must be dismissed.

Section 7A-27(a)(3) allows an immediate appeal from an interlocutory Business Court order affecting a substantial right; the appellant must show what material right would be lost without immediate review.

Hanesbrands Inc. v. Fowler · filed 2016-12-21(a)(3)a

We conclude that defendant has failed to show that this order affects a substantial right as required for appeal of an interlocutory order pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a). Accordingly, we dismiss defendant’s appeal.

Section 7A-27(b)(1) preserves the right to appeal a final superior court judgment when a party abandons one issue in its brief.

Conleys Creek Ltd. P'ship v. Smoky Mountain Country Club Prop. Owners Ass'n · filed 2017-09-05(b)(1)

While it is true that Rule 28 of our Appellate Rules provides that issues not presented in a party’s brief are deemed abandoned, N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6), this does not affect the party’s right to appeal “[f]rom any final judgment of a superior court[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(1)(2015).

Section 7A-27(a)(2) directs appeals from final judgments in mandatory complex business cases filed on or after October 1, 2014, to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Justice v. Mission Hosp., Inc. · filed 2019-06-05(a)(2)

For a final judgment in a mandatory complex business case filed on or after October 1, 2014, appeal is to be made directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Section 7A-27 requires appeals from final judgments or orders discontinuing an action in a mandatory complex business case designated after October 1, 2014 to be filed with the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Alc Mfg., Inc. v. J. Streicher & Co. · filed 2020-07-30(a)(2), (a)(3)

Sections 7A-27(a)(2) and 7A-27(a)(3) require that an appeal from a final judgment or an interlocutory order that discontinues an action in a case designated as a mandatory complex business case after October 1, 2014 must be filed with the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Section 7A-27(a)(3)(a) permits an appeal from an interlocutory Business Court order if the order affects a substantial right; dismissal without prejudice does not meet that condition when relief remains available.

Button v. Level Four Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc. · filed 2022-03-11(a)(3)(a)

However, interlocutory orders from the Business Court may be appealed to this Court if the order affects a substantial right. N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a)(3)(a). ... As not all relief has been denied, it follows that no substantial right has been affected and plaintiff’s appeal is premature.

Section 7A-27(a)(3) permits an appeal as of right from an interlocutory business court order only when the appellant demonstrates that the order meets one of the section’s specified grounds.

KNC Techs., LLC v. Tutton · filed 2022-06-17(a)(3)

Appellants must demonstrate why the order has the claimed effect under N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a)(3).

Section 7A-27(a)(3) requires an appellant seeking review of an interlocutory Business Court order to show grounds for appellate jurisdiction, such as an affected substantial right.

In re Se. Eye Ctr. · filed 2024-05-23(a)(3)

Appellant’s failure to appeal a final order from the Business Court or argue how the Business Court’s order “affects a substantial right” deprives this Court of our ability to perform appellate review. ... Appellant has again failed to demonstrate that this Court has appellate jurisdiction under N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a)(3).

Section 7A-27(a) requires appeals from the Business Court to be taken to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Law Off. of Ashley-Nicole Russell, P.A. v. McLawhorn Legal Servs. Pllc · filed 2026-04-29(a)

Further, pursuant to Section 7A-27 of the North Carolina General Statutes, any appeal from this Court shall be taken to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Section 7A-27(a) requires appeals from final judgments in mandatory complex business cases to be taken to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Wright v. Lorusso · filed 2026-05-21(a)

In addition, an appeal from a “final judgment in a case designated as a mandatory complex business case” shall be taken to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a). Stansell, however, erroneously attempted to give notice of appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.