{
  "id": 8525482,
  "name": "BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SMITH-ROWE INCORPORATED, and JAMES W. RAYFORD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Richmond County",
  "decision_date": "1988-06-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 8820SC56",
  "first_page": "577",
  "last_page": "581",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 N.C. App. 577"
    }
  ],
  "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": "305 N.C. 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571503
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0575-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 S.E. 2d 491",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 117",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4694848,
        4685635,
        4691143,
        4696177,
        4697201
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0117-03",
        "/nc/314/0117-02",
        "/nc/314/0117-04",
        "/nc/314/0117-05",
        "/nc/314/0117-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 S.E. 2d 880",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.C. App. 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525275
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/74/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 S.E. 2d 141",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "145"
        },
        {
          "page": "146"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 S.E. 2d 297",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 N.C. 14",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560927
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/287/0014-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 S.E. 2d 784",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 117",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11300016
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/22/0117-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 S.E. 2d 217",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N.C. App. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550713
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/48/0380-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 S.E. 2d 115",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.C. App. 132",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8357977
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/87/0132-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 S.E. 2d 231",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549543
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/40/0227-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 S.E. 2d 182",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568484
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0324-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 S.E. 2d 777",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.C. App. 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520808
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/60/0331-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S.E. 2d 728",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.C. 758",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627081
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/253/0758-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 S.E. 2d 593",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572803
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0603-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 S.E. 2d 338",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572343
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S.E. 2d 377",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629835
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 S.E. 2d 900",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4721088,
        4722128,
        4723161,
        4721278,
        4726335
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0330-05",
        "/nc/313/0330-03",
        "/nc/313/0330-01",
        "/nc/313/0330-02",
        "/nc/313/0330-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 S.E. 2d 544",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N.C. App. 120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520751
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/70/0120-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571503
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0575-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 495,
    "char_count": 8266,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.766,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1568881935703826e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5831365071863263
    },
    "sha256": "600844b5531cd802cd5a93eed0cd7eb09eaf0cccaee633f018a139c2102a53e9",
    "simhash": "1:11b9d6e357ed95fe",
    "word_count": 1367
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:12.261630+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ORR and Smith concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SMITH-ROWE INCORPORATED, and JAMES W. RAYFORD COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nThe issue here is whether the trial court properly denied DOT\u2019s motion to dismiss the County\u2019s cross-claims. For the reasons stated below we find that the trial court\u2019s order is interlocutory and, therefore, this appeal must be dismissed.\nThe threshold question is whether this case is properly before us. In re Watson, 70 N.C. App. 120, 318 S.E. 2d 544 (1984), disc. rev. denied, 313 N.C. 330, 327 S.E. 2d 900 (1985). An order which does not entirely dispose of the case as to all parties and issues is interlocutory. Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 57 S.E. 2d 377 (1950). Our courts will not hear appeals from interlocutory orders unless the orders affect a substantial right, Waters v. Personnel Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978), which may be lost or prejudiced by exception to the order\u2019s entry. See Green v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 603, 290 S.E. 2d 593 (1982). This rule promotes judicial economy by eliminating fragmentary appeals and preserves the entire case for determination in a single appeal. Harrell v. Harrell, 253 N.C. 758, 117 S.E. 2d 728 (1961). Avoidance of a trial is not a substantial right. Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 299 S.E. 2d 777 (1983). G.S. 1-277(b), however, provides an exception to the general rule by allowing an \u201cimmediate appeal from an adverse ruling as to the jurisdiction of the court over the person.\u201d\nDOT\u2019s motion presented three grounds for dismissal. Denial of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is interlocutory, Teachy v. Coble Dairies, Inc., 306 N.C. 324, 293 S.E. 2d 182 (1982), as is the denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. O\u2019Neill v. Bank, 40 N.C. App. 227, 252 S.E. 2d 231 (1979). Neither affects a substantial right and neither is immediately appealable. In its brief DOT correctly argues that a state agency may be sued only with the explicit or implicit consent of the State. DOT contends that the State has not authorized a tort suit to be brought against it or one of its agencies in this specific procedural manner. Therefore, DOT claims that the State\u2019s sovereign immunity precludes the County\u2019s cross-claims.\nIn Teachy our Supreme Court declined to address whether sovereign immunity was an issue of subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction. This Court has stated on several occasions that sovereign immunity was a matter of personal jurisdiction. Zimmer v. N.C. Dept. of Transportation, 87 N.C. App. 132, 360 S.E. 2d 115 (1987); Stahl-Rider v. State, 48 N.C. App. 380, 269 S.E. 2d 217 (1980); Sides v. Hospital, 22 N.C. App. 117, 205 S.E. 2d 784 (1974), modified and affirmed, 287 N.C. 14, 213 S.E. 2d 297 (1975). Relying on those cases, DOT argues that by operation of G.S. 1-277(b) this case is properly before us now.\nWe note, however, that our Supreme Court in Love v. Moore, 305 N.C. 575, 291 S.E. 2d 141 (1982), narrowly construed G.S. 1-277(b). The court stated that the statute \u201capplie[d] 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.\u201d Id. at 580, 291 S.E. 2d at 145. The court held \u201cthat the right of immediate appeal of an adverse ruling as to jurisdiction over the person, under [G.S. 1-277(b)], is limited to rulings on \u2018minimum contacts\u2019 questions.\u201d Id. at 581, 291 S.E. 2d at 146. The court reasoned that a narrow construction of G.S. 1-277(b) not only promoted judicial economy, but protected the rights of foreign defendants as well.\nHere the question does not involve \u201cminimum contacts.\u201d Indeed, DOT concedes that if Burlington had not brought DOT into the action as an original defendant, the County could have properly impleaded DOT as a third-party defendant pursuant to Rule 14(c). We understand DOT\u2019s position to be that DOT was brought into the case in a procedurally incorrect manner and not that the court has no authority to bring DOT into the suit at all, Poret v. State Personnel Comm., 74 N.C. App. 536, 328 S.E. 2d 880, disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 117, 332 S.E. 2d 491 (1985).\nThe Supreme Court\u2019s narrow construction of G.S. l-277(b) in Love convinces us that this is the type of procedural technicality that can be better resolved after a full and complete adjudication of the case. Moreover, Rule 21 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure reinforces this belief. In part, Rule 21 provides that\n[n]either misjoinder of parties nor misjoinder of parties and claims is ground for dismissal of an action; but on such terms as are just parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action.\n[Emphasis added.] Given the pleadings facing it, the County had no choice but to denominate its indemnification claim against DOT as a cross-claim.\nBased upon our longstanding precedent against fragmentary appeals and the narrow construction of G.S. l-277(b) mandated by Love, we hold that this appeal is interlocutory and must be dismissed.\nDismissed.\nJudges ORR and Smith concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General John F. Maddrey, for defendant-appellant North Carolina Department of Transportation.",
      "Page, Page & Webb, by John T. Page, Jr., for defendant-ap-pellee Richmond County."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SMITH-ROWE INCORPORATED, and JAMES W. RAYFORD COMPANY\nNo. 8820SC56\n(Filed 21 June 1988)\nAppeal and Error g 6.2\u2014 denial of motion to dismiss cross-claims \u2014 appeal interlocutory \u2014dismissed\nAn appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss defendant Richmond County\u2019s cross-claims was interlocutory and was dismissed. Under Love v. Moore, 305 N.C. 575, the right of immediate appeal of an adverse ruling as to jurisdiction over the person under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 l-277(b) is limited to rulings on minimum contact questions and the question here does not involve minimum contacts.\nAppeal by defendant North Carolina Department of Transportation from John, Judge. Order entered 19 October 1987 in Superior Court, RICHMOND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 June 1988.\nRichmond County (County) contracted with Burlington Industries (Burlington) to provide water services for a Burlington plant located in Richmond County. They agreed that these services would meet certain requirements specified by Burlington. The water line serving Burlington\u2019s plant was located within a North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) right-of-way.\nOn 7 January 1985 the County entered into a contract with DOT for relocation of the DOT right-of-way. Subsequently, DOT contracted with Smith-Rowe Incorporated to be general contractor for the project. The DOT and Smith-Rowe contract required that water service to the Burlington plant be interrupted only for the week of 4 July 1985. This week coincided with an anticipated shutdown of the Burlington plant so that less water service would be needed that week. Smith-Rowe subcontracted the pipe line relocation to the James W. Rayford Company.\nBurlington alleged that the defendants did not relocate the water line in a timely manner and the resulting water service provided by the County did not meet its contractual requirements. Burlington claimed damages of approximately $175,000 and sued the County, DOT, Smith-Rowe, and Rayford under separate theories of breach of contract and negligent performance of contract.\nIn response, DOT moved to have Burlington\u2019s claim against it dismissed according to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Before the trial court ruled on DOT\u2019s motion, the County answered and filed cross-claims against DOT and the other co-defendants. The County\u2019s cross-claims against DOT requested indemnification in the event that it was found liable to Burlington. DOT then moved to dismiss the County\u2019s cross-claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). Thereafter Burlington gave notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice according to Rule 41(a) as to their claim against DOT. The trial court then denied DOT\u2019s motion to dismiss the County\u2019s cross-claims. DOT appeals.\nAttorney General Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General John F. Maddrey, for defendant-appellant North Carolina Department of Transportation.\nPage, Page & Webb, by John T. Page, Jr., for defendant-ap-pellee Richmond County."
  },
  "file_name": "0577-01",
  "first_page_order": 607,
  "last_page_order": 611
}