{
  "id": 8523997,
  "name": "JAMES CLEVENGER v. PRIDE TRIMBLE CORPORATION and W2, INCORPORATED",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clevenger v. Pride Trimble Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1989-12-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 8920SC598",
  "first_page": "631",
  "last_page": "633",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "96 N.C. App. 631"
    }
  ],
  "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": "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": "270 S.E.2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "434"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564716
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "210"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 S.E.2d 405",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571111
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 S.E.2d 797",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560682
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 S.E.2d 405",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571111
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0435-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 3430,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.745,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34063626875543707
    },
    "sha256": "032a0f304fd73742e6d2864940982c52a54d1a4aae748213b6ddfed999dde4bc",
    "simhash": "1:bc31c52f0cfe22f9",
    "word_count": 542
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:35.242103+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge HEDRICK concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES CLEVENGER v. PRIDE TRIMBLE CORPORATION and W2, INCORPORATED"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nAlthough the issue was not raised by either party, we must initially determine whether plaintiff\u2019s appeal is premature. Where summary judgment is allowed for fewer than all the defendants and the judgment does not contain a certification pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b), that there is \u201cno just reason for delay,\u201d a plaintiff\u2019s appeal will be premature unless the order allowing summary judgment affects a substantial right. Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435, 293 S.E.2d 405 (1982). \u201cThe \u2018substantial right\u2019 test for appealability is more easily stated than applied.\u201d Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 210, 270 S.E.2d 431, 434 (1980). The substantial right question in each case is usually resolved by considering the particular facts of that case and the procedural context in which the order from which appeal is sought was entered. Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E.2d 338 (1978).\nHaving considered the particular facts and circumstances in this case we hold that the order allowing summary judgment for fewer than all the defendants in the present case does not affect a substantial right. Accordingly, plaintiff\u2019s appeal will be dismissed.\nDismissed.\nChief Judge HEDRICK concurs.\nJudge Phillips dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "Judge Phillips\ndissenting.\nIn holding that the order appealed from does not affect a substantial right, the majority failed to note that of the \u201cparticular facts\u201d of the case the most significant is that the defendants are sued for the same wrongs, one as agent and the other as principal. Which means, of course, that the dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s action as to one defendant raises the possibility of two juries in two different trials reaching inconsistent verdicts on the same evidence, and this is a travesty no litigant in this state is required to suffer. Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435, 293 S.E.2d 405 (1982); Oestreicher v. American National Stores, Inc., 290 N.C. 118, 225 S.E.2d 797 (1976), and many other cases. Furthermore, even if the appeal was technically premature, I would determine it on its merits rather than leave it to return later to the additional delay and inconvenience of the parties and this Court alike.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Judge Phillips"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown, Robbins, May, Pate, Rich, Scarborough & Burke, by P. Wayne Robbins, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Poyner & Spruill, by Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for defendant appellee Pride Trimble."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES CLEVENGER v. PRIDE TRIMBLE CORPORATION and W2, INCORPORATED\nNo. 8920SC598\n(Filed 19 December 1989)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6.2 (NCI3d)\u2014 summary judgment for fewer than all parties \u2014premature appeal\nPlaintiff\u2019s appeal was premature where summary judgment was allowed for fewer than all the defendants, and the order allowing summary judgment did not affect a substantial right.\nAm Jur 2d, Appeal and Error \u00a7 104.\nJudge Phillips dissenting.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from order entered 6 February 1989 by Judge William H. Freeman in MOORE County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 October 1989.\nPlaintiff filed this civil action seeking damages for the alleged conversion of plaintiff\u2019s chattels by defendants and for the unauthorized use of plaintiff\u2019s telephone by defendants. On 21 December 1988, defendant, Pride Trimble Corporation [hereinafter Pride Trimble], moved for summary judgment. On 6 February 1989, the trial judge entered an order granting Pride Trimble\u2019s motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff\u2019s action against it. Plaintiff appealed.\nBrown, Robbins, May, Pate, Rich, Scarborough & Burke, by P. Wayne Robbins, for plaintiff appellant.\nPoyner & Spruill, by Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for defendant appellee Pride Trimble."
  },
  "file_name": "0631-01",
  "first_page_order": 663,
  "last_page_order": 665
}