Interlocutory Appeals
Generally
"Generally, there is no right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders and judgments. Goldston v. Am. Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 725, 392 S.E.2d 735, 736 (1990); see also State v. Henry, 318 N.C. 408, 409, 348 S.E.2d 593, 593 (1986) ("There is no provision for appeal to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right from an interlocutory order entered in a criminal case.); but see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-979(c), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1432(d) and (e), and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1445, which permit an appeal of right from interlocutory rulings in criminal cases in limited circumstances.
"A final judgment is one which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court. An interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy. Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361-62, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950) (citations omitted).
"There is no more effective way to procrastinate the administration of justice than that of bringing cases to an appellate court piecemeal through the medium of successive appeals from intermediate orders. Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 363, 57 S.E.2d 377, 382 (1950).
Grounds for Appellate Review
"[W]hen an appeal is interlocutory, the appellant must include in its statement of grounds for appellate review 'sufficient facts and argument to support appellate review on the ground that the challenged order affects a substantial right.' Johnson v. Lucas, 168 N.C. App. 515, 518, 608 S.E.2d 336, 338 (quoting N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(4)), aff'd per curiam, 360 N.C. 53, 619 S.E.2d 502 (2005).
Exceptions
"[I]mmediate appeal of interlocutory orders and judgments is available in at least two instances. First, immediate review is available when the trial court enters a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties and certifies there is no just reason for delay. ... Second, immediate appeal is available from an interlocutory order or judgment which affects a substantial right. Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 161-62, 522 S.E.2d 577, 579 (1999) (quotation marks omitted).
Substantial Right Exception
"It is not the duty of this Court to construct arguments for or find support for appellant's right to appeal from an interlocutory order; instead, the appellant has the burden of showing this Court that the order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be jeopardized absent a review prior to a final determination on the merits. Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994).
"The appellants must present more than a bare assertion that the order affects a substantial right; they must demonstrate why the order affects a substantial right. Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. State, 198 N.C. App. 274, 277-78, 679 S.E.2d 512, 516 (2009).
"Admittedly the 'substantial right' test for appealability of interlocutory orders is more easily stated than applied. It is usually necessary to resolve the question in each case 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. Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978).
"Essentially a two-part test has developed " the right itself must be substantial and the deprivation of that substantial right must potentially work injury . . . if not corrected before appeal from final judgment. Goldston v. Am. Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 726, 392 S.E.2d 735, 736 (1990).
Rule 54(b) Exception
In addition to the appeals pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1-277 and N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(d), Rule 54(b) provides that in an action with multiple parties or multiple claims, if the trial court enters a final judgment as to a party or a claim and certifies there is no just reason for delay, the judgment is immediately appealable." DKH Corp. v. Rankin-Patterson Oil Co., 348 N.C. 583, 585, 500 S.E.2d 666, 668 (1998).
When the trial court certifies its order for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b), appellate review is mandatory. Nonetheless, the trial court may not, by certification, render its decree immediately appealable if '[it] is not a final judgment.'" Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 162, 522 S.E.2d 577, 579 (1999) (citation omitted) (quoting Lamb v. Wedgewood South Corp., 308 N.C. 419, 425, 302 S.E.2d 868, 871 (1983)).
Personal Jurisdiction Exception (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277(b))
"Any interested party shall have the right of immediate appeal from an adverse ruling as to the jurisdiction of the court over the person or property of the defendant .... N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277(b) (2011).
"[T]he right of immediate appeal of an adverse ruling as to jurisdiction over the person, under , is limited to rulings on 'minimum contacts' questions, the subject matter of Rule 12(b)(2). Love v. Moore, 305 N.C. 575, 581, 291 S.E.2d 141, 146 (1982).
"[A]n appeal of a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity presents a question of personal jurisdiction rather than subject matter jurisdiction, and is therefore immediately appealable.
On the other hand, the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not immediately appealable. Data Gen. Corp. v. Cnty. of Durham, 143 N.C. App. 97, 100, 545 S.E.2d 243, 245-46 (2001) (citations omitted).