{
  "id": 8550677,
  "name": "JAMES F. RORIE v. KENNETH G. BLACKWELDER and wife, BARBARA A. BLACKWELDER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rorie v. Blackwelder",
  "decision_date": "1975-06-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7526SC208",
  "first_page": "195",
  "last_page": "197",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 195"
    }
  ],
  "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": "210 S.E. 2d 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550000
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 41",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549975
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/25/0018-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 4606,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3728075846420702e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7958861694253218
    },
    "sha256": "fd272a4341923a5dc5ad33edb19f88270d72111d6b2272a799b893468ac8020c",
    "simhash": "1:1a095c1c69f62988",
    "word_count": 753
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES F. RORIE v. KENNETH G. BLACKWELDER and wife, BARBARA A. BLACKWELDER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nAlthough neither party has raised the question, it is clear that the judgment from which the plaintiff purports to appeal adjudicates \u201cthe rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties\u201d and contains no determination by the trial judge that \u201cthere is no just reason for delay\u201d within the language of Rule 54(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:\n\u201c(b) Judgment upon, multiple claims or involving multiple parties. \u2014 When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may enter a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only if there is no just reason for delay and it is so determined in the judgment. Such judgment shall then be subject to review by appeal or as otherwise provided by these rules or other statutes. In the absence of entry of such a final judgment, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties and shall not then be subject to review either by appeal or otherwise except as expressly provided by these rules or other statutes. Similarly, in the absence of entry of such a final judgment, any order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and' the rights and liabilities of all the parties.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nIn the recent cases of Leasing, Inc. v. Dan-Cleve Corp., 25 N.C. App. 18, 212 S.E. 2d 41 (1975) and Arnold v. Howard, 24 N.C. App. 255, 210 S.E. 2d 492 (1974), this court dismissed the appeals where the judgments from which the appeals were taken adjudicated \u201cthe rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties\u201d and furthermore contained no determination by the trial judge that there was \u201cno just reason for delay\u201d.\n.In the present case, the judgment dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claim adjudicates \u201cthe rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties\u201d and expressly retains jurisdiction \u201cfor the purpos\u00e9 of adjudication with respect to defendants\u2019 counterclaim\u201d without providing \u201cno just reason for delay\u201d. Therefore, the order from which plaintiff purports to appeal is interlocutory and not ap-pealable. Leasing, Inc. v. Dan-Cleve Corp., supra, and Arnold v. Howard, supra. It is significant that Rule 54(b) specifically provides that:\n\u201cIn the absence of entry of such a final judgment, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties .... Similarly,' in the absence of entry of such a final judgment, any order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and, liabilities of all the parties.\u201d (Em-, phasis added.)\nApplying the foregoing portion of Rule 54(b) to the present case, the order dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claim is, therefore, subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating defendants\u2019 counterclaim. See, Durham v. Creech, filed in the Court of Appeals, 21 May 1975. For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scarborough, Haywood & Merryman by Charles B. Merry-man, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Horack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes by Travis W. Moon for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES F. RORIE v. KENNETH G. BLACKWELDER and wife, BARBARA A. BLACKWELDER\nNo. 7526SC208\n(Filed 4 June 1975)\nRules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 54 \u2014 judgment not adjudicating rights of all parties \u2014 interlocutory order \u2014 no right to appeal\nJudgment dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claim and retaining jurisdiction for the purpose of adjudicating defendants\u2019 counterclaim is interlocutory and not presently appealable since it adjudicates the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties and contains no determination by the trial judge that there is no just reason for delay. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b).\nAppeal by plaintiff from Wood, Judge. Judgment entered 19 December 1974 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 May 1975.\nThe court entered summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff\u2019s claim and ordered \u201cthat jurisdiction be retained for the purpose of adjudication with respect to defendants\u2019 counterclaim.\u201d\nPlaintiff appealed.\nScarborough, Haywood & Merryman by Charles B. Merry-man, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nHorack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes by Travis W. Moon for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0195-01",
  "first_page_order": 223,
  "last_page_order": 225
}
