{
  "id": 11919071,
  "name": "In the Matter of INSPECTION OF: GALVAN INDUSTRIES, INC., 7320 Millbrook Road, Harrisburg, North Carolina 28075",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Inspection of Galvan Industries, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1996-06-04",
  "docket_number": "No. COA95-946",
  "first_page": "628",
  "last_page": "631",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 628"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "36 ALR Fed. 763",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. Fed.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 S.E.2d 20",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "23"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550577
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "375"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/40/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "392 S.E.2d 735",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "736",
          "parenthetical": "discussing appealability of interlocutory orders"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 723",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5307026
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "726",
          "parenthetical": "discussing appealability of interlocutory orders"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0723-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "366 S.E.2d 500",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "502"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522499
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "418"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/89/0415-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 S.E.2d 419",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 759",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574073
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0759-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 S.E.2d 656",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "657"
        },
        {
          "page": "657",
          "parenthetical": "allowing appeal from contempt proceedings for failure to comply with administrative search warrants"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 N.C. App. 529",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553429
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "531"
        },
        {
          "page": "531"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/39/0529-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15-27.2",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 S.E.2d 348",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "349"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 N.C. App. 701",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526932
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "702"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/69/0701-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 S.E.2d 385",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 327",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4719235,
        4724236,
        4726804,
        4722549,
        4725112
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0327-05",
        "/nc/313/0327-04",
        "/nc/313/0327-03",
        "/nc/313/0327-01",
        "/nc/313/0327-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 S.E.2d 440",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "444"
        },
        {
          "page": "441"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N.C. App. 681",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524450
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "688"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/70/0681-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 S.E.2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "254"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. App. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12129791
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "380"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/115/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 S.E.2d 496",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 669",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4687618,
        4688131,
        4688077,
        4686229,
        4692124
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0669-04",
        "/nc/314/0669-01",
        "/nc/314/0669-03",
        "/nc/314/0669-02",
        "/nc/314/0669-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 S.E.2d 203",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "204"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N.C. App. 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526458
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "606-607"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/75/0604-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 387,
    "char_count": 6256,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3191908099661409
    },
    "sha256": "7a56a56f7816372faafeb16ffc797fb22e96817e8ad0a31ee04b7601429397f5",
    "simhash": "1:7e78354a813d204e",
    "word_count": 1002
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:52.508825+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge JOHN concurs.",
      "Judge MARTIN, Mark D., concurs with separate opinion."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In the Matter of INSPECTION OF: GALVAN INDUSTRIES, INC., 7320 Millbrook Road, Harrisburg, North Carolina 28075"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nGalvan Industries, Inc. (Galvan) appeals from the 6 June 1995 order of the trial court, which denied Galvan\u2019s motion to quash an administrative inspection warrant.\nOn 15 May 1995, the Cabarrus County Superior Court issued an Administrative Inspection Warrant, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15-27.2, for the purposes of conducting an inspection authorized by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of North Carolina. That same day, Galvan made a motion to quash this administrative warrant, which was denied by the trial court on 6 June 1995.\nThe dispositive issue is whether this appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory.\nAdministrative search warrants are analogous to discovery requests, as they are for the purpose of discovering facts and obtaining evidence, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(f) (1983), a purpose akin to discovery, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 26 (1990), and refusal to honor an administrative search warrant subjects an agency to contempt, Brooks, Comm\u2019r of Labor v. Taylor Tobacco Enters., Inc., 39 N.C. App. 529, 531, 251 S.E.2d 656, 657, rev\u2019d on other grounds, 298 N.C. 759, 260 S.E.2d 419 (1979), just as refusal to comply with discovery requests subjects a party to sanctions. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 37 (1990).\nBecause the situations are analogous, it is proper to apply the law regarding the appealability of discovery issues in determining the appealability of administrative search warrants. In civil cases, because orders compelling discovery are generally not appealable until entry of a final order, Benfield v. Benfield, 89 N.C. App. 415, 418, 366 S.E.2d 500, 502 (1988), it follows that the validity of administrative search warrants are generally not matters for the appellate courts until the entry of a final order. The validity of the warrants can, however, be immediately addressed on appeal upon a showing of a substantial right. See Taylor Tobacco Enters., Inc., 39 N.C. App. at 531, 251 S.E.2d at 657 (allowing appeal from contempt proceedings for failure to comply with administrative search warrants).\nIn this case, there has been no final order entered and Galvan has made no showing that any substantial right is affected. See Goldston v. American Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 726, 392 S.E.2d 735, 736 (1990) (discussing appealability of interlocutory orders). Indeed, Galvan retains the right to move to suppress any \u201cfacts discovered or evidence obtained\u201d on the basis that \u201cthe warrant is invalid or if what is discovered or obtained is\u201d not within the scope of the warrant. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-27.2(f).\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudge JOHN concurs.\nJudge MARTIN, Mark D., concurs with separate opinion.\n. We need not decide in this case whether the denial of the motion to suppress evidence obtained on the basis of an alleged invalid administrative warrant is immediately appealable. We do note that in the context of the criminal law, the denial of a motion to suppress is not immediately appealable. State v. Grogan, 40 N.C. App. 371, 375, 253 S.E.2d 20, 23 (1979).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "Judge Martin, Mark D.\nconcurring with separate opinion.\nThe present record establishes that Galvan failed to offer either argument or citation to establish the comprehensive search proposed by the North Carolina Department of Labor, Office of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) impermissibly infringed on a substantial right \u2014 for example, its Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Shaw v. Williamson, 75 N.C. App. 604, 606-607, 331 S.E.2d 203, 204 (in civil case interlocutory order immediately appealable if substantial constitutional right affected), disc. review denied, 314 N.C. 669, 335 S.E.2d 496 (1985). Therefore, as it is not the duty of this Court to \u201cconstruct arguments for or find support for [Galvan\u2019s] right to appeal from an interlocutory order . . . ,\u201d Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994), I concur with the majority\u2019s dismissal of the present appeal.\nOn remand, should Galvan refuse to honor the administrative warrant and OSH petition the trial court for a hearing compelling Galvan to show cause why it should not be subject to civil contempt, Galvan can therein attack the sufficiency of the probable cause underlying the comprehensive search warrant. See Brooks, Comr. of Labor v. Butler, 70 N.C. App. 681, 688, 321 S.E.2d 440, 444 (1984), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 313 N.C. 327, 329 S.E.2d 385 (1985). Further, any decision rendered by the trial court in the show cause hearing is immediately appealable. See, e.g., id. at 683, 321 S.E.2d at 441; Brooks, Comr. of Labor v. Gooden, 69 N.C. App. 701, 702, 318 S.E.2d 348, 349 (1984).\nAccordingly, I concur in the majority opinion.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "Judge Martin, Mark D."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Blakeney & Alexander, by Richard F. Kane and Robert B. Meyer, for petitioner-appellant Galvan Industries, Inc.",
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General RalfF. Haskell and Associate Attorney General John C. Sullivan, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In the Matter of INSPECTION OF: GALVAN INDUSTRIES, INC., 7320 Millbrook Road, Harrisburg, North Carolina 28075\nNo. COA95-946\n(Filed 4 June 1996)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 93 (NCI4th); Searches and Seizures \u00a7 143 (NCI4th)\u2014 administrative search warrant \u2014 validity\u2014not immediately appealable\nThe denial of a motion to quash an administrative search warrant was not immediately appealable. Administrative search warrants are analogous to discovery requests and, in civil cases, orders compelling discovery are generally not appealable until entry of a final order. It follows that the validity of administrative search warrants is generally not a matter for the appellate courts until the entry of a final order; however, the validity of the warrants can be immediately addressed on appeal upon a showing that a substantial right is affected. In this case, there has been no final order and Galvan has made no showing that any substantial right is affected.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7\u00a7 135, 137, 139, 140.\nAppealability of discovery order as \u201cfinal decision\u201d under 28 USCS sec. 1291. 36 ALR Fed. 763.\nJudge Martin, Mark D., concurring.\nAppeal by petitioner Galvan Industries, Inc., from order entered 6 June 1995 in Cabarrus County Superior Court by Judge James C. Davis. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 April 1996.\nBlakeney & Alexander, by Richard F. Kane and Robert B. Meyer, for petitioner-appellant Galvan Industries, Inc.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General RalfF. Haskell and Associate Attorney General John C. Sullivan, for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0628-01",
  "first_page_order": 664,
  "last_page_order": 667
}