Does the statutory right to appellate review of a superior court’s final judgment under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(1) apply to a criminal appeal by the State? That is the central question a divided Supreme Court addressed a little over a month ago in State v. J.C. The underlying facts in J.C. concerned the expunction of the arrest, trial, and conviction records of a former juvenile defendant (i.e., J.C.).

aordinary facts would have to exist for the appellate courts to take up such an invitation. Denials of Rule 54(b) certification are discretionary determinations. And while an opinion or order allowing certiorari review of such an order might exist somewhere, I have never seen one.Instead…When a trial court denies a request for Rule 54(b) certification, an appellant should lick its wounds and turn to demonstrating some other avenue for immediate appellate review—which is usually the substantial right analysis.A host of appellate opinions, including SR Auto, simplify the interlocutory appeal analysis by stating that “the only way an appellant may establish appellate jurisdiction in an interlocutory case, absent Rule 54(b) certification, is by showing grounds for appellate review based on the order affecting a substantial right.” ¶ 12 (emphasis in original).Without question, the most common method for obtaining appellate review of an interlocutory orders is the substantial right prong of N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(b)(3)(a). But is it really the only other way to establish a right to appellate review of an interlocutory order? When searching for a right to pursue interlocutory appellate review, don’t overlook less common statutory jurisdiction grounds.In addition to the ubiquitous “substantial right” ground, section7A-27(b)(3) contains five other statutory grounds for obtaining appellate review of a non-final judgment. Interestingly, none of those subsections use the phrase “substantial right.” And then there is my personal favorite, which is located in section 7A-27(b)(4). Subsection (b)(4) sums up the absolute rule regarding the right to appellate review rather nicely. Appellate review exists “[f]rom any other order or judgment of the superior court from which an appeal is authorized by statute.”Subsection 7A-27(b)(4) is not an anomaly. Peppered throughout North Carolina’s General Statutes are assorted provisions that authorize interlocutory appellate review in special circumstances. See e.g., N.C. Gen

To prevent opposition from the business community, the legislature included in the Act a potentially beneficial reform of state class action procedural law.The Class Action Appeals Amendment. The Act amends N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 by adding a new subsection (subsection (a)(4)), which provides: “[an] [a]ppeal lies of right directly to the Supreme Court in any of the following cases: Any trial court’s decision regarding class action certification under . . . Rule 23 [of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure].” This short amendment implements at least four significant changes to North Carolina class action practice.

Christenbury appealed to the Court of Appeals. The COA found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal, explaining that "[i]n 2014, our General Assembly enacted Chapter 102 of the 2014 North Carolina Session Laws, which, among other things, amended N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 so as to provide a direct right of appeal to the Supreme Court from a final judgment of the Business Court.[.]" The Court further concluded that the effective date of the 2014 amendments to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2) was October 1, 2014, and any case designated as a mandatory complex business case after that date (whether it was filed before that time or not) was subject to the 2014 amendments to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2). There are certainly myriad cases currently pending in Business Court that will lead to appeals.

Christenbury appealed to the Court of Appeals. The COA found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal, explaining that "[i]n 2014, our General Assembly enacted Chapter 102 of the 2014 North Carolina Session Laws, which, among other things, amended N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 so as to provide a direct right of appeal to the Supreme Court from a final judgment of the Business Court.[.]" The Court further concluded that the effective date of the 2014 amendments to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2) was October 1, 2014, and any case designated as a mandatory complex business case after that date (whether it was filed before that time or not) was subject to the 2014 amendments to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2). There are certainly myriad cases currently pending in Business Court that will lead to appeals.

H.B. 239 recognizes the reality that for company defendants the granting of class certification can be equally case determinative, as the risks and costs of defending class action litigation often pressure companies into settling even meritless cases once a class is certified.H.B. 239 – Right to Appeal Decisions Regarding Class Certification In pertinent part, H.B. 239 modifies N.C.G.S. § 7A-27, Appeals of right from the courts of the trial divisions, to read: Appeal lies of right directly to the Supreme Court in any of the following cases…(4) Any trial court’s decision regarding class action certification under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 23. H.B. 239 grants appellate review as a right, whereas Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) leaves it to the discretion of the appellate court whether to review the trial court’s decision to grant or deny class certification.

suffered the first disappointment above. A car dealership mailed out flyers that advertised a scratch-off contest. According to the plaintiffs, on every flyer, the scratch-off number matched the number for the grand prize: a 2018 Nissan Sentra. When the lucky “winners” went to the dealership to claim their new cars, they were told that the scratch-off numbers were meaningless, and that they had won just two dollars.The disappointed participants responded by mailing something back to the car dealership: a putative class-action complaint. They alleged that the dealership had breached a contract (the flyer) and had committed unfair and deceptive trade practices.[1]A North Carolina trial court certified the case as a class action. The certified class included all persons who had received a supposedly winning flyer and who had gone to the dealership to claim their prize.The defendants appealed the class-certification ruling straight to the North Carolina Supreme Court. They did so based on section 7A-27(a)(4) of the North Carolina General Statutes. That section not only allows an immediate appeal of any ruling regarding class certification, but sends those appeals directly to North Carolina’s highest court. This blog discussed the enactment of this statute here and here.In the Supreme Court, the Surgeon case appeared to tee up a much-debated issue of class-action law that has not yet been resolved in North Carolina: the issue of “ascertainability.”As Lawrence Moore and Jordan DeJaco noted on this blog last year, federal appellate courts have held that for a class to be certified under federal law, a court must be able to figure out who the class members are. The class members must, that is, be ascertainable. The federal appellate courts have disagreed, however, on how burdensome this ascertainability requirement is. Some hold that if a series of mini-trials would be needed to decide who is a class member and who isn’t, certification is improper. Others hold, in contrast, that class certification is allowed so long as the criter

First, Rule 3(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure required the Notice of Appeal to be filed in the originating court – Mecklenburg County Superior Court:“Any party entitled by law to appeal from a judgment or order of a superior or district court rendered in a civil action or special proceeding may take appeal by filing notice of appeal with the clerk of superior court and serving copies thereof upon all other parties within the time prescribed by subsection (c) of this rule.Perhaps because Rule 3(a) is not a model of clarity for cases arising from the Business Court, the Court’s rules offer clarification. North Carolina Business Court Rule 14.1 specifies that the Business Court is not the filing destination:“An appeal from an order or judgment of the Court is taken by filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of Superior Court in the county of venue.Second, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2), a direct appeal of a Business Court judgment in a mandatory designation case lies with the North Carolina Supreme Court for all cases designated to the Business Court after October 1, 2014. 2020 NCBC at ¶ 27.The Court previously has concluded that while an appellate court “may have discretion to excuse a notice of appeal’s noncompliance with Appellate Rule 3,” the Business Court believes it does not have such leeway. Id. at ¶ 29 (citing Zloop, Inc. v. Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, 2018 NCBC 39).

In other words, [Hartford] will reimburse for the [ACV] of the damaged roof surfacing less any applicable policy deductible.Relying on this language, Judge McGuire held that the policy was not ambiguous and that this ACV formula applied to the entire claim, not just roof repairs. The court dismissed the case, and plaintiff appealed directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2).The Supreme Court affirmed. Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Beasley expressly rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the policy was ambiguous because the clause about depreciation of labor appeared only in an Addendum addressing roof repairs.

19 NCBC 36 at ¶19. But, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(a)(2) requires appeals from final judgments in cases designated as a mandatory complex business case to be directed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals. Judge Gale did the analytical work on the issue the previous year in Zloop, Inc. v. Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein.