Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
37 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sharpe v. Worlandgreen2 sentences2026When “a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right . . . .” Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 166 (1999). 2024When “a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right . . . .” Sharpe, 351 N.C. at 166 (emphasis added). | 16 | 29 |
K2 Asia Ventures v. Trotagreen2 sentences2021A substantial right is invoked when a party asserts a statutory privilege, which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed, and the assertion of the privilege is not “frivolous or insubstantial.” K2 Asia Ventures v. Trota, 215 N.C. 2021A substantial right is invoked when a party asserts a statutory privilege, which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed, and the assertion of the privilege is not “frivolous or insubstantial.” K2 Asia Ventures v. Trota, 215 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Jenkins v. Maintenance, Inc.green2 sentences2021App. 110, 112 , 332 S.E.2d 90, 92 (1985) (citation omitted). ¶ 15 Plaintiff argues the Production Order affects her substantial rights and this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. “[W]here a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right.” Evans v. United Servs. 2021App. 110, 112 , 332 S.E.2d 90, 92 (1985) (citation omitted). ¶ 15 Plaintiff argues the Production Order affects her substantial rights and this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. “[W]here a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right.” Evans v. United Servs. | 2 | 2 |
Hudson-Cole Development Corp. v. Beemergreen2 sentences2007App. 341, 344 , 511 S.E.2d 309, 311 (1999). “[W]hen, as here, a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right[.]” Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 166 , 522 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1999). 2003App. 341, 344 , 511 S.E.2d 309, 311 (1999); see Sharpe, 351 N.C. at 162 , 522 S.E.2d at 579 (substantial right affected if order “ ‘deprives the appealing party of a substantial right which will be lost if the order is not reviewed before a final judgment is entered’ ”) (citation omitted). “[W]hen, as here, a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right . . . .” Sharpe, 351 N.C. at 1 | 2 | 2 |
Mims v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2012App. 339, 341 , 578 S.E.2d 606, 608 (2003)] “ ‘[W]hen, as here, a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right. . . .’ ” Id. (quoting Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 166 , 522 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1999)). 2012App. 339, 341 , 578 S.E.2d 606, 608 (2003)] “ ‘[W]hen, as here, a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right. . . .’ ” Id. (quoting Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 166 , 522 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1999)). | 1 | 2 |
Lockwood v. McCaskillgreen2 sentences2009App. 255 , 555 S.E.2d 361 (2001) (citing Lockwood v. McCaskill, 261 N.C. 754 , 136 S.E.2d 67 (1964)). *343 Plaintiffs first cite Sharpe’s oft-repeated rule that, when “a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right.” Sharpe, 351 N.C. at 166 , 522 S.E.2d at 581 . 2009App. 255 , 555 S.E.2d 361 (2001) (citing Lockwood v. McCaskill, 261 N.C. 754 , 136 S.E.2d 67 (1964)). *343 Plaintiffs first cite Sharpe’s oft-repeated rule that, when “a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right.” Sharpe, 351 N.C. at 166 , 522 S.E.2d at 581 . | 1 | 2 |
Armstrong Ex Rel. Collins v. Barnesgreen1 sentence2010See Armstrong v. Barnes, 171 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Isom v. Bank of America, N.A.green2 sentences2009We agree. *637 A review of discovery orders is generally considered interlocutory and therefore not usually immediately appealable unless they affect a substantial right. “[W]here a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right....” Isom v. Bank of Am., N.A., 177 N.C. 2009App. 406, 410 , 628 S.E.2d 458, 461 (2006) (alterations in original) (quoting Evans v. United Servs. | 1 | 1 |
Hayes v. Premier Living, Inc.green2 sentences2009Our Supreme Court has held that “when ... a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right.” Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 166 , 522 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1999); see also Hayes v. Premier Living, Inc., 181 N.C. 2009App. 747, 751 , 641 S.E.2d 316, 318 (2007) (finding that the interlocutory discovery order compelling production of reports which might be privileged pursuant to N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Mabrey v. Smithgreen1 sentence2005App. 119, 121 , 548 S.E.2d 183, 185 (2001). “[W]hen... a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right under [N.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Swannanoa Valley Youth Development Center
neutral
2 sentences2022This Court then extended the “reasoning set forth in Sharpe” to find an appeal “affect[ed] a substantial right” where the defendants challenged an order compelling discovery on the grounds it would lead to the release of “juvenile records, social services records, [and] law enforcement records” in violation of statutes requiring a court order to release those records, including North Carolina General Statutes §§ 7B-2901(b) and 132-1.4, both of which are at issue here.3 Jane Doe 1 v. Swannanoa Valley Youth Development Center, 163 N.C. 2022This Court then extended the “reasoning set forth in Sharpe” to find an appeal “affect[ed] a substantial right” where the defendants challenged an order compelling discovery on the grounds it would lead to the release of “juvenile records, social services records, [and] law enforcement records” in violation of statutes requiring a court order to release those records, including North Carolina General Statutes §§ 7B-2901(b) and 132-1.4, both of which are at issue here.3 Jane Doe 1 v. Swannanoa Valley Youth Development Center, 163 N.C. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Midkiff v. Compton
green
2 sentences2012Midkiff v. Compton, 204 N.C. 2010App. 24 , 693 S.E.2d at 174 , (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2010–2012 |
Doe v. SWANNANOA VALLEY YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTER
neutral
1 sentence2009However, an interlocutory order denying discovery has been held to affect a substantial right when: (A) “ ‘a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial,’ ” id. (quoting Sharpe, 351 N.C. at 166 , 522 S.E.2d at 581 ), or (B) “the desired discovery would not have delayed trial or have caused the opposing party any unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense, and if the information desired is highly ma | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Miles v. Martin
green
1 sentence2009App. 255 , 555 S.E.2d 361 (2001) (citing Lockwood v. McCaskill, 261 N.C. 754 , 136 S.E.2d 67 (1964)). *343 Plaintiffs first cite Sharpe’s oft-repeated rule that, when “a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right.” Sharpe, 351 N.C. at 166 , 522 S.E.2d at 581 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Dworsky v. Travelers Insurance
green
1 sentence2009Co., 49 N.C. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Shore v. Farmer
green
1 sentence2007An interlocutory discovery order affects a substantial right when “a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under [the order], and the assertion of such privilege is not *751 otherwise frivolous or insubstantial.” Sharpe, 351 N.C. at 166 , 522 S.E.2d at 581 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Willis v. Duke Power Co.
green
2 sentences2005But our courts have recognized two narrow exceptions to the rule against direct appeal from discovery orders: where such orders include a finding of contempt or othersanctions, Willis v. Duke Power Co., 291 N.C. 19 , 30, 229 S.E.2d 191 , 198 (1976), or where a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order. 2005But our courts have recognized two narrow exceptions to the rule against direct appeal from discovery orders: where such orders include a finding of contempt or othersanctions, Willis v. Duke Power Co., 291 N.C. 19 , 30, 229 S.E.2d 191 , 198 (1976), or where a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro
neutral
1 sentence1999To the extent such cases as Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 123 N.C. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.