Go to Top

Blog Archives

Fourth Circuit Explains the Scope of “Collateral Order Doctrine”

The federal corollary to the oft-blogged about “substantial right doctrine” in the North Carolina appellate courts is the “collateral order doctrine.”  As is the case under North Carolina law, the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals is generally limited to final decisions of the district court.  Therefore,  a federal appellate court ordinarily cannot review interlocutory orders.  But, as in North Carolina, there are exceptions.  One of these …Read More

Does Res Judicata Raise a Substantial Right? Depends.

There is perhaps no topic more frequently covered on this blog than that of the appeal of an interlocutory order and the substantial rights that will permit such an appeal to be immediately reviewed by the appellate court.  That this is a recurring topic on the blog is unsurprising, as it is an recurring issue addressed by North Carolina’s appellate opinions.  True to form, the issue was addressed by the Court …Read More

Supreme Court Gets Down to Business—Business Court Cases, That Is

With the reworking of N.C.G.S. § 7A-27 to provide a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina from certain orders of the North Carolina Business Court, it was expected that our State’s highest court would start churning out business law opinions. The batch of opinions from the Supreme Court released on December 7th contained three opinions originating from the Business Court, but only two of these came directly …Read More

Fourth Circuit Holds that Trial Court Cannot Prevent Appellate Review of Decision by Vacating that Decision After Appellate Proceedings Have Commenced

In an opinion highlighting an interesting federal appellate jurisdictional issue, the Fourth Circuit on Monday vacated a “gag order” that had been entered by the district court.  That gag order, however, had already been vacated by the district court itself.  This raised the possibility that the Fourth Circuit was without jurisdiction to address the gag order, which had been challenged in the appellate court through a petition for a writ …Read More

Unpublished Fourth Circuit Per Curiam Opinion Involving Pro Se Litigant Rights Moving Towards the Supreme Court on the Backs of Legal Giants

Note: much of the information below comes from The American Lawyer’s October 23 “Daily Dicta,” by Jenna Greene. He started as a pro se plaintiff alleging First Amendment (and other) violations by a number of federal judges, an FBI agent, and a US Marshal.  Now William Bond has been represented by some of the heaviest of legal heavyweights as his case makes its way up towards the highest court in the land.  David Boies has …Read More

Fourth Circuit Judge Advocates for “Unpublishing” Panel Opinion, Simultaneously Lauds and Criticizes the Court

Appellate practitioners are familiar with the concept of moving to have the court publish an opinion that was initially issued as “unpublished.”  Much rarer is the reverse situation, where a party seeks to have an opinion that was published “demoted” to unpublished status.  And perhaps even rarer is to have that request for “unpublishing” made by a member of the Court.  In fact, the first and only time I’ve ever personally …Read More

What Does the Supreme Court of North Carolina Consider To Be a “Substantial Right”?

Those familiar with North Carolina appellate jurisprudence are well aware that what constitutes “a substantial right” for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction over an interlocutory order is an issue that is routinely addressed, oftentimes at length, in North Carolina appellate opinions.   So it was interesting to see the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s opinion in Krawiec v. Manly (released last Friday) in which the Court invoked substantial right jurisdiction over …Read More

The Curious Case(s) of the Published Denial of Rehearing

Twice this week the Fourth Circuit took the relatively unusual step of issuing published opinions on orders denying rehearing of a case.  Ordinarily such orders are not published for the simple reason that there is no accompanying written opinion to publish.  Not so this week, however. On Monday the Court denied a request for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in US v. Brown, a case involving criminal sentencing and due process.  …Read More

Court of Appeals Continues to Clarify, This Time With Respect to Burden of Proving Timely Appeal

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has started off 2018 with a trend of clarification.  As we noted last week, in this year’s first batch of opinions the Court clarified the applicable standard of review for a trial court’s decision on whether a party has waived a contractual right to arbitration. And now after the year’s second batch of opinions was released earlier this week, appellate practitioners have further clarity: if …Read More