{
  "id": 8526152,
  "name": "FRED M. UPDIKE v. MARGRIT DAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Updike v. Day",
  "decision_date": "1984-12-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 8428SC582",
  "first_page": "636",
  "last_page": "637",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 N.C. App. 636"
    }
  ],
  "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": "291 S.E. 2d 141",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "145"
        },
        {
          "page": "146"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571503
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "580"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0575-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 2297,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.782,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3413078441442374e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6312248320268865
    },
    "sha256": "4260c50925ebf9febac2bb7d88662230f545f1259ea4aa1c6567ce640163406b",
    "simhash": "1:453e6d395424b168",
    "word_count": 377
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:06.115640+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Braswell and Eagles concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "FRED M. UPDIKE v. MARGRIT DAY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge.\nThe appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory.\nG.S. l-277(b) provides that an interested party has the right of immediate appeal from an adverse ruling as to the jurisdiction of the Court over the person or property of defendant. The Supreme Court of North Carolina has held, however, that challenges to sufficiency of process and service do not concern the State\u2019s power to bring a defendant before its courts for trial; instead, they concern the means by which a court gives notice to a defendant and asserts jurisdiction over him. \u201cG.S. l-277(b) applies to the state\u2019s authority to bring a defendant before its courts, not to technical questions concerned only with whether that authority was properly invoked from a procedural standpoint. . . . [I]f the court has the jurisdictional power to require that the party defend and the challenge is merely to the process of service used to bring the party before the court, G.S. 1-277(b) does not apply.\u201d Love v. Moore, 305 N.C. 575, 580, 291 S.E. 2d 141, 145 (1982). \u201cAllowing an immediate appeal only for \u2018minimum contacts\u2019 jurisdictional questions precludes premature appeals to the appellate courts about issues of technical defects which can be fully and adequately considered on an appeal from final judgment, while ensuring that parties who have less than \u2018minimum contacts\u2019 with this state will never be forced to trial against their wishes.\u201d Id. at 581, 291 S.E. 2d at 146.\nIn accordance with the mandate in Love, we must dismiss the appeal ex mero motu.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Braswell and Eagles concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. David Gantt, P.A., for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Herbert L. Hyde and G. Edison Hill, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FRED M. UPDIKE v. MARGRIT DAY\nNo. 8428SC582\n(Filed 4 December 1984)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6.1\u2014 motion to dismiss \u2014 absence of proper service \u2014 denial not immediately appealable\nAn order denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss for plaintiffs failure to obtain proper service of process was not immediately appealable. G.S. l-277(b).\nAppeal by defendant from Sitton, Judge. Order entered 8 March 1984 in Superior Court, BUNCOMBE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 October 1984.\nThis is an appeal from the denial of defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss for plaintiffs failure to obtain proper service of process.\nC. David Gantt, P.A., for plaintiff appellee.\nHerbert L. Hyde and G. Edison Hill, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0636-01",
  "first_page_order": 670,
  "last_page_order": 671
}