{
  "id": 8470902,
  "name": "STEPHEN and MICHELLE ARNOLD, ROBERT P. and ELIZABETH M. BARR, DAVID E. and KRYSTAL D. BOTTOM, TIMOTHY A. and JEANETTE P. BRADLEY, CHARLES MICHAEL and DEBRA S. BRAUN, KENT and BARBARA CAMPBELL, ROBERT E. and AIDA V. DUNGAN, RICHARD R. and CHARLOTTE D. ELEY, JONATHAN A. and PEGGY J. HILL, STEVEN P. and CHRISTI W. HURD, JOHN P. and KIMBERLY J. KENNEDY, PIERCE A. KAHADUWE LIVING TRUST, MARK P. and JACQUELINE G. RUSCOE, BENJAMIN F. and SUSAN E. TURNER, JACQUELYN M. WEBB, TRUSTEE OF THE JACQUELYN M. WEBB LIVING TRUST, MARC B. and JACKIE LEE WESTLE, DERWIN J. and NANCY L. C. WILLIAMS, ROBERT L. and BECKY L. WILSON, STEPHEN M. and JULIA R. EARGLE, and ROBERT A. and JANE P. ERRICO, Petitioners v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arnold v. City of Asheville",
  "decision_date": "2005-04-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA04-690",
  "first_page": "451",
  "last_page": "454",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "169 N.C. App. 451"
    }
  ],
  "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": "522 S.E.2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "579"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 N.C. 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1155801
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "163"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/351/0159-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "513 S.E.2d 598",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "600"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N.C. App. 682",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11239820
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "685"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/132/0682-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "581 S.E.2d 464",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "465",
          "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 N.C. App. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9188416
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "534-35",
          "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/158/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "460 S.E.2d 332",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "334"
        }
      ],
      "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"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/119/0730-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 440,
    "char_count": 7119,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.737,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35623601993784193
    },
    "sha256": "993a4b73dde8a358551ff222c53529f0a85f951b7250e86c81ffd6d24064c686",
    "simhash": "1:bba8c19156afe4e4",
    "word_count": 1151
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:06:54.593382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WYNN and HUDSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STEPHEN and MICHELLE ARNOLD, ROBERT P. and ELIZABETH M. BARR, DAVID E. and KRYSTAL D. BOTTOM, TIMOTHY A. and JEANETTE P. BRADLEY, CHARLES MICHAEL and DEBRA S. BRAUN, KENT and BARBARA CAMPBELL, ROBERT E. and AIDA V. DUNGAN, RICHARD R. and CHARLOTTE D. ELEY, JONATHAN A. and PEGGY J. HILL, STEVEN P. and CHRISTI W. HURD, JOHN P. and KIMBERLY J. KENNEDY, PIERCE A. KAHADUWE LIVING TRUST, MARK P. and JACQUELINE G. RUSCOE, BENJAMIN F. and SUSAN E. TURNER, JACQUELYN M. WEBB, TRUSTEE OF THE JACQUELYN M. WEBB LIVING TRUST, MARC B. and JACKIE LEE WESTLE, DERWIN J. and NANCY L. C. WILLIAMS, ROBERT L. and BECKY L. WILSON, STEPHEN M. and JULIA R. EARGLE, and ROBERT A. and JANE P. ERRICO, Petitioners v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE, Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "STEELMAN, Judge.\nOn 27 June 2002, respondent City of Asheville (respondent, Asheville or city) enacted an annexation ordinance extending its corporate limits. On 23 August 2004, petitioners filed a petition seeking judicial review of the 27 June 2002 annexation ordinance, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-50 (2004). Petitioners alleged that the area annexed by respondent failed to meet requirements set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 160A-45, -47, -48, -49 (2004). On 4 October 2002, the City filed a response to the petition. On 9 April 2003, respondent served upon petitioners discovery requests, including respondent\u2019s first request for admission, respondent\u2019s first set of interrogatories, and respondent\u2019s first request for production of documents. Petitioners objected to respondent\u2019s discovery requests on the basis that they constituted improper discovery under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-50(c) and N.C. R. Civ. P. 26. The city filed a motion to compel. Following a hearing on this motion, the trial court entered an order compelling petitioners to respond to the discovery requests but did not impose any sanctions upon petitioners. From this order, petitioners appeal.\nThe threshold question is whether petitioners\u2019 appeal is properly before this Court. There is no dispute that this appeal is interlocutory, as it is from an order that was \u201cmade 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 North Carolina Dep\u2019t of Transp. v. Page, 119 N.C. App. 730, 733, 460 S.E.2d 332, 334 (1995).\nIn general, \u201cthere is no right to immediate appeal from an interlocutory order.\u201d \u201cThis rule is grounded in sound policy considerations. Its goal is to \u2018prevent fragmentary and premature appeals that unnecessarily delay the administration of justice and to ensure that the trial divisions fully and finally dispose of the case before an appeal can be heard.\u2019 \u201d However, there are two significant exceptions to this rule. First, an interlocutory order is immediately appealable \u201cwhen the trial court enters \u2018a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties\u2019 and the trial court certifies in the judgment that there is no just rea- \u2019 son to delay the appeal.\u201d Secondly, an interlocutory order may be immediately appealed if \u201cthe order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be jeopardized absent a review prior to a final determination on the merits.\u201d\nEvans v. Evans, 158 N.C. App. 533, 534-35, 581 S.E.2d 464, 465 (2003) (internal citations omitted). \u201cIn either instance, the burden is on the appellant \u2018to present appropriate grounds for this Court\u2019s acceptance of an interlocutory appeal and our Court\u2019s responsibility to review those grounds.\u2019\u201d Romig v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 132 N.C. App. 682, 685, 513 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1999). There was no certification pursuant to Rule 54(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure in this case.\n\u201cAn order compelling discovery is generally not immediately appealable because it is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right that would be lost if the ruling were not reviewed before final judgment.\u201d Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 163, 522 S.E.2d 577, 579 (1999). Our appellate courts have recognized very limited exceptions to this general rule, holding that an order compelling discovery might affect a substantial right, and thus allow immediate appeal, if it either imposes sanctions on the party contesting the discovery, or requires the production of materials protected by a recognized privilege. See Sharpe, 351 N.C. 159, 522 S.E.2d 577.\nNeither of these exceptions are present in this case, nor do petitioners so contend. Instead, petitioners argue that the respondent\u2019s discovery will interfere with the petitioners\u2019 right to \u201cexpedited judicial review\u201d as set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-50. We agree with petitioners that this statute does contemplate an expedited hearing procedure in annexation cases. The record in this case shows that the petition was timely filed, and responded to. There is no indication that this matter was scheduled for trial at the time respondent\u2019s discovery was filed. More importantly, the record is devoid of any efforts by petitioners requesting an early trial setting. Rather, the most significant portion of the delay in this matter was due to petitioners\u2019 refusal to answer discovery (June 2003-November 2003), and in getting this matter before this court (December 2003 to March 2005). It took six months to get the record on appeal settled in this matter, and another five months for all of the briefs to be submitted. It does not appear that petitioners are truly concerned with attaining an expedited hearing in this matter. We further note that under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-50(i), the annexation will not be effective until the date of the final judgment in this matter in either the trial or appellate court.\nPetitioners have failed to demonstrate that the order of the trial court affects a substantial right. This appeal is hereby dismissed.\nDISMISSED.\nJudges WYNN and HUDSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STEELMAN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dungan & Associates, P.A., by Shannon Lovins, for petitioners-appellants.",
      "Robert W. Oast, Jr. for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STEPHEN and MICHELLE ARNOLD, ROBERT P. and ELIZABETH M. BARR, DAVID E. and KRYSTAL D. BOTTOM, TIMOTHY A. and JEANETTE P. BRADLEY, CHARLES MICHAEL and DEBRA S. BRAUN, KENT and BARBARA CAMPBELL, ROBERT E. and AIDA V. DUNGAN, RICHARD R. and CHARLOTTE D. ELEY, JONATHAN A. and PEGGY J. HILL, STEVEN P. and CHRISTI W. HURD, JOHN P. and KIMBERLY J. KENNEDY, PIERCE A. KAHADUWE LIVING TRUST, MARK P. and JACQUELINE G. RUSCOE, BENJAMIN F. and SUSAN E. TURNER, JACQUELYN M. WEBB, TRUSTEE OF THE JACQUELYN M. WEBB LIVING TRUST, MARC B. and JACKIE LEE WESTLE, DERWIN J. and NANCY L. C. WILLIAMS, ROBERT L. and BECKY L. WILSON, STEPHEN M. and JULIA R. EARGLE, and ROBERT A. and JANE P. ERRICO, Petitioners v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE, Respondent\nNo. COA04-690\n(Filed 5 April 2005)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 interlocutory order \u2014 order compelling discovery\nPetitioners\u2019 appeal from an order compelling discovery in an annexation case is an appeal from an interlocutory order and is not immediately appealable because: (1) it does not affect a substantial right since it does not impose sanctions on the party contesting the discovery nor does it require production of materials protected by a recognized privilege; (2) it does not appear that petitioners are truly concerned with attaining an expedited hearing when the most significant portion of the delay in this matter was due to petitioners\u2019 refusal to answer discovery and in getting this matter before the Court of Appeals; and (3) N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-50(i) provides that the annexation will not be effective until the date of the final judgment in this matter in either the trial or appellate court.\nAppeal by petitioners from judgment entered 20 November 2003 by Judge Zoro J. Guice, Jr. in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 March 2005.\nDungan & Associates, P.A., by Shannon Lovins, for petitioners-appellants.\nRobert W. Oast, Jr. for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0451-01",
  "first_page_order": 481,
  "last_page_order": 484
}
