{
  "id": 9126974,
  "name": "DUQUESNE ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff v. SHILOH INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, INC. and PROCESS PLANT CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Duquesne Energy, Inc. v. Shiloh Industrial Contractors, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "2002-03-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA01-443",
  "first_page": "227",
  "last_page": "230",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "149 N.C. App. 227"
    }
  ],
  "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": "363 S.E.2d 642",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N.C. App. 476",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8358470
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/88/0476-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "381 S.E.2d 774",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Horne v. Nobility Homes, Inc., 88 N.C. App. 476, 363 S.E.2d 642 (1988)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 N.C. 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Horne v. Nobility Homes, Inc., 88 N.C. App. 476, 363 S.E.2d 642 (1988)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "377 S.E.2d 285",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Horne v. Nobility Homes, Inc., 88 N.C. App. 476, 363 S.E.2d 642 (1988)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N.C. App. 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527949
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Horne v. Nobility Homes, Inc., 88 N.C. App. 476, 363 S.E.2d 642 (1988)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/93/0199-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 S.E.2d 694",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. App. 423",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12131407
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/115/0423-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "533 S.E.2d 817",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N.C. App. 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9496607
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/139/0290-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "552 S.E.2d 220",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "223",
          "parenthetical": "citing Murphy v. Coastal Physician Grp., Inc., 139 N.C. App. 290, 533 S.E.2d 817 (2000); Moose v. Nissan of Statesville, 115 N.C. App. 423, 444 S.E.2d 694 (1994)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N.C. App. 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11355165
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "162",
          "parenthetical": "citing Murphy v. Coastal Physician Grp., Inc., 139 N.C. App. 290, 533 S.E.2d 817 (2000); Moose v. Nissan of Statesville, 115 N.C. App. 423, 444 S.E.2d 694 (1994)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/146/0159-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 S.E.2d 777",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "780"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.C. App. 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520808
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "335"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/60/0331-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "511 S.E.2d 27",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 l-277(a); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-27"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N.C. App. 229",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11237423
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 l-277(a); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-27"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/132/0229-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "460 S.E.2d 332",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "334",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N.C. App. 730",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11917406
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "733",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/119/0730-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 365,
    "char_count": 5727,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.759,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.578924433977879e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4493594028068818
    },
    "sha256": "9df3bf8c96c67ba84a61f1898041a900b68c006ec1f2e0deb343fe8880782918",
    "simhash": "1:cbaa44f86c6346ee",
    "word_count": 879
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:06:37.161258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and BRYANT concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DUQUESNE ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff v. SHILOH INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, INC. and PROCESS PLANT CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "SMITH, Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals from the judgment entered 18 October 2000, where the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of defendant Shiloh Industrial Contractors, Inc. (\u201cShiloh\u201d), and defendant Process Plant Consultants, Inc. (\u201cPPC\u201d) on all claims of plaintiff, as well as summary judgment in favor of both defendants regarding their respective counterclaims for breach of contract against plaintiff.\nThe pleadings before the Court allege, in substance, that plaintiff entered into a contract with Shiloh and PPC to design and build a facility to manufacture an alternative fuel product. A disagreement arose over when the contract required completion of the facility, and plaintiff filed suit for, among other things, breach of contract. Defendants, respectively, filed answers and counterclaims against plaintiff. Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for partial summary judgment; PPC filed a motion for summary judgment and Shiloh filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims of plaintiff and on defendants\u2019 respective claims for breach of contract. Damages for plaintiffs breach were to be determined in a subsequent trial. In addition, Shiloh\u2019s claims against plaintiff for intentional fraud and unfair and deceptive practice, and PPC\u2019s claims for injury to business reputation and unfair and deceptive practice, remained to be adjudicated. The judgment was not certified for immediate review by the trial court pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b), even though plaintiff made a specific request to certify the judgment for appeal. Nevertheless, plaintiff filed notice of appeal of the trial court\u2019s judgment to this Court. Defendants thereafter filed motions to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s appeal as interlocutory.\nAn order is interlocutory \u201cif it is made during the pendency of an action and does not dispose of the case but requires further action by the trial court in order to finally determine the entire controversy.\u201d N.C. Dept. of Transportation v. Page, 119 N.C. App. 730, 733, 460 S.E.2d 332, 334 (1995) (citation omitted). Although interlocutory orders are generally not immediately appealable, a party may appeal from an interlocutory order which affects a substantial right. Hart v. F.N. Thompson Constr. Co., 132 N.C. App. 229, 511 S.E.2d 27 (1999) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 l-277(a); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-27). A substantial right is \u201cone which will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before final judgment.\u201d Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1983). This Court \u201cmust determine whether denial of immediate review exposes a party to multiple trials with the possibility of inconsistent verdicts.\u201d Creek Pointe Homeowner\u2019s Ass\u2019n., Inc. v. Happ, 146 N.C. App. 159, 162, 552 S.E.2d 220, 223 (2001) (citing Murphy v. Coastal Physician Grp., Inc., 139 N.C. App. 290, 533 S.E.2d 817 (2000); Moose v. Nissan of Statesville, 115 N.C. App. 423, 444 S.E.2d 694 (1994)).\nIn plaintiffs brief in opposition to Shiloh\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiffs appeal as interlocutory, plaintiff admitted the appeal was interlocutory but nevertheless argued that it was pursuing the present appeal under the \u201csubstantial right doctrine.\u201d However, no substantial right is involved in the present case which would require this Court to review plaintiffs appeal prior to a full determination of the entire controversy among the parties. The trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment dismissing all of plaintiff\u2019s claims and entering judgment in favor of both defendants as to their respective breach of contract claims resolves, for now, the question of which party breached the contract. Plaintiff, for now, will be held accountable in a trial determining damages for its breach; plaintiff will also be required to stand trial for the separate claims brought by defendants. This Court has repeatedly held that avoiding trial on the merits is not a substantial right. Leake v. Sunbelt Ltd. of Raleigh, 93 N.C. App. 199, 377 S.E.2d 285, disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 578, 381 S.E.2d 774 (1989) (citing Horne v. Nobility Homes, Inc., 88 N.C. App. 476, 363 S.E.2d 642 (1988)). Plaintiff has not identified a substantial right which would be irremediably adversely affected by this Comb\u2019s refusal to hear this interlocutory appeal. Blackwelder, 60 N.C. App. 331, 299 S.E.2d 777.\nPlaintiff\u2019s appeal in the present case is interlocutory, does not affect a substantial right, and is therefore dismissed.\nDismissed.\nJudges TIMMONS-GOODSON and BRYANT concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SMITH, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hux, Livermon & Armstrong, L.L.P., by H. Lawrence Armstrong, Jr., and James S. Livermon, Jr., for plaintiff - appellant.",
      "Pepper Hamilton L.L.P., by George M. Medved and Kim M. Watterson, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Battle, Winslow, Scott & Wiley, P.A., by Marshall A. Gallop, Jr., for defendant-appellee Shiloh Industrial Contractors, Inc.",
      "Poyner & Spruill, L.L.P, by J. Nicholas Ellis and Timothy W. Wilson, for defendant-appellee Process Plant Consultants, Inc."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DUQUESNE ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff v. SHILOH INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, INC. and PROCESS PLANT CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendants\nNo. COA01-443\n(Filed 5 March 2002)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 partial summary judgment \u2014 avoidance of trial \u2014 not a substantial right\nAn appeal from a partial summary judgment was dismissed as interlocutory where plaintiff pursued the appeal under the \u201csubstantial right doctrine,\u201d but avoiding trial on the merits is not a substantial right.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 18 October 2000 by Judge Cy A. Grant, Sr., in Halifax County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 January 2002.\nHux, Livermon & Armstrong, L.L.P., by H. Lawrence Armstrong, Jr., and James S. Livermon, Jr., for plaintiff - appellant.\nPepper Hamilton L.L.P., by George M. Medved and Kim M. Watterson, for plaintiff-appellant.\nBattle, Winslow, Scott & Wiley, P.A., by Marshall A. Gallop, Jr., for defendant-appellee Shiloh Industrial Contractors, Inc.\nPoyner & Spruill, L.L.P, by J. Nicholas Ellis and Timothy W. Wilson, for defendant-appellee Process Plant Consultants, Inc."
  },
  "file_name": "0227-01",
  "first_page_order": 261,
  "last_page_order": 264
}