{
  "id": 8524289,
  "name": "LINNIE ATHALEA SCHMITT v. DONALD MELVIN SCHMITT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schmitt v. Schmitt",
  "decision_date": "1983-04-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 8221DC198",
  "first_page": "750",
  "last_page": "751",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 N.C. App. 750"
    }
  ],
  "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": "270 S.E. 2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564716
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0205-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 158,
    "char_count": 1880,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.81,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2055330252844857
    },
    "sha256": "02dd12af91ac16185e5a7e69c9621c7861e3908a267a6a7e3cb7ecd4ab794740",
    "simhash": "1:9c71ae4f6c8749c2",
    "word_count": 295
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:13:54.976609+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Webb and Becton concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LINNIE ATHALEA SCHMITT v. DONALD MELVIN SCHMITT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nThis preliminary injunction is inherently and expressly interlocutory in nature. Consequently, it is not immediately ap-pealable unless it affects a substantial right. G.S. \u00a7 1-277, \u00a7 7A-27(d). A showing to that effect has neither been made nor attempted by the appellant, and our study of the record failed to discover any substantial right of the defendant that might be jeopardized or compromised if the preliminary injunction remains in force until the case is tried. Defendant has merely been ordered to continue making the monthly payments that he voluntarily contracted to make several years earlier. This being so, even though the question of appealability was not raised by the parties, under Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 270 S.E. 2d 431 (1980), we are obliged to dismiss the appeal on our own motion.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Webb and Becton concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gary J. Walker for the plaintiff appellee.",
      "Pettyjohn & Molitoris, by Theodore M. Molitoris, for the defendant appellant"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LINNIE ATHALEA SCHMITT v. DONALD MELVIN SCHMITT\nNo. 8221DC198\n(Filed 19 April 1983)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6.2\u2014 preliminary injunction ordering support payments \u2014no right of appeal\nDefendant had no right to appeal a preliminary injunction ordering defendant to make monthly support payments pursuant to the terms of a separation agreement until plaintiffs action for breach of the separation agreement is determined on its merits.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Keiger, Judge. Order entered 19 October 1981 in District Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 January 1983.\nThis is an appeal from a preliminary injunction ordering defendant to make monthly support payments, pursuant to the terms of a separation agreement executed by the parties several years earlier, until plaintiffs action for breach of the separation agreement is \u201cheard and determined on its merits.\u201d\nGary J. Walker for the plaintiff appellee.\nPettyjohn & Molitoris, by Theodore M. Molitoris, for the defendant appellant"
  },
  "file_name": "0750-01",
  "first_page_order": 782,
  "last_page_order": 783
}