{"count":142451,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xOC41MTk2ODQmcz0xMDMzMjgzMSZ0PW8mZD0yMDI2LTEwLTA3JnA9Mg%3D%3D&q=INTERLOCUTORY+JUDGMENTS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10591631/in-re-se-eye-ctr-judgments/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Se. Eye Ctr. (Judgments)","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2018 NCBC 8"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10591631,"court":"North Carolina Business Court","court_citation_string":"N.C. Bus. Ct.","court_id":"ncbizct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-01-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"12-CVS-11322","docket_id":70351940,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-05-23T17:15:48.051148Z","date_created":"2025-05-23T17:15:47.970385Z","score":{"bm25":40.952805}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1215274,1269426,1269895,1275471,1306323,1315558,1341468,8898567,8908911,9612095,9622271,9848510],"download_url":"https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/opinions/2018_NCBC_8.pdf?VersionId=vcLya7WyVMRGMammMVMJVzqMiTWs39B_","id":11058219,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/01/24/in_re_se._eye_ctr._judgments.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:05:42.908443Z","date_created":"2025-05-23T17:15:47.990582Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"edbc79580a7bf42bf4ff4df7093aec12aa80ece5","snippet":"In re Se. Eye Ctr. (Judgments), 2018 NCBC 8.\n\n\nSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                       IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE\n                                                  SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION\nGUILFORD COUNTY                                         12 CVS 11322\n\nIN RE SOUTHEASTERN EYE                            ORDER AND OPINION ON\nCENTER- JUDGMENTS                                JAMES MARK MCDANIEL’S\n                                                 MOTION TO RECONSIDER\n\n\n   1.     THIS MA","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11058219],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4295592/woodrow-w-miller-assignee-of-judgments-2-cash-llc-v-royal-isd-waller/","attorney":"","caseName":"Woodrow W. Miller, Assignee of Judgments 2 Cash, LLC v. Royal ISD, Waller County and Waller-Harris ESD200","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4295592,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]","court_id":"txctapp14","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-12-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14-14-00753-CV","docket_id":4462166,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T11:41:47.014440Z","date_created":"2016-09-30T03:16:01.853743Z","score":{"bm25":24.29029}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1355224,1743533,1752687,1758594,1947466],"download_url":"http://www.search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=86644&Index=%5c%5cOCA%2dPSQL01%2ecourts%2estate%2etx%2eus%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa12%5cOpinion","id":4072853,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/12/22/woodrow_w._miller_assignee_of_judgments_2_cash_llc_v._royal_isd_waller.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T11:41:47.013414Z","date_created":"2016-09-30T03:16:01.861338Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a3540af589b7944b592769f5cec7d32dd666a7ad","snippet":"Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 22, 2015.\n\n\n\n\n                                         In The\n\n                      Fourteenth Court of Appeals\n\n                                NO. 14-14-00753-CV\n\n WOODROW W. MILLER, ASSIGNEE OF JUDGMENTS 2 CASH, LLC,\n                       Appellant\n                                           V.\n\n  ROYAL ISD, WALLER COUNTY AND WALLER-HARRIS ESD#200,\n                        Appellees\n\n                On Appeal from the 506th Judicial District Cour","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4072853],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3333346/town-of-guilford-v-cristini/","attorney":"Judith A. Ravel,  for the plaintiff.\n\n Leslie D. Cristini,  pro se, and  Willinger, Shepro, Tower   Bucci,  for the named defendant et al.\n\n Lecomte, Wolf, Horowitz, Rosenthal  Ray,  for the defendant Lecomte, Wolf, Horowitz, Rosenthal  Ray.\n\n Mayo, Gilligan  Zito,  for the defendant Merrill Lynch Business Financial Services, Inc.\n\n Michelson, Kane, Royster  Barger,  for the defendant The Netherlands Insurance Company.\n\n Bergman, Horowitz  Reynolds,  for the defendant United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company.","caseName":"Town of Guilford v. Cristini","caseNameFull":"Town of Guilford v. Leslie D. Cristini Et Al.","citation":["708 A.2d 979","45 Conn. Super. Ct. 235","45 Conn. Supp. 235","1997 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3002"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":3333346,"court":"Connecticut Superior Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. Super. Ct.","court_id":"connsuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1997-11-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"File CV970401329S","docket_id":3205467,"judge":"Blue","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T19:45:33.311922Z","date_created":"2016-07-05T17:44:39.558914Z","score":{"bm25":22.726032}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[107407,435061,2347290,3316240,3320985,3321668],"download_url":null,"id":3328849,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"/home/mlissner/columbia/opinions/connecticut/superior_court_opinions/documents/18a69ef2a7b31c99.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T05:31:34.788844Z","date_created":"2016-07-05T17:44:39.565160Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1d50f0e30ea06a456629c0dbe403bd79b8e287a4","snippet":"This interpleader action has been brought in an attempt to resolve a seemingly intractable combination of disputes over a lawsuit and its attempted settlement. For the reasons set forth below, interpleader is not an appropriate remedy under the circumstances. *Page 236 \nInterpleader is an ancient equitable remedy, statutorily available in Connecticut \"[w]henever any person has, or is alleged to have, any money or other property in his possession whi","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"Memorandum on motion for interlocutory judgment of interpleader.  Motion  denied.","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3328849],"source":"ZU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10032182/shannon-v-rouse-builders/","attorney":"","caseName":"Shannon v. Rouse Builders","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10032182,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-08-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23-318","docket_id":69017358,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-08-06T12:04:05.793329Z","date_created":"2024-08-06T12:04:05.753161Z","score":{"bm25":20.439646}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1155109,1208732,1247301,1252319,1255172,1260821,1277294,1284185,1294544,1299980,1306545,1317353,1328681,1334992,1343067,1356917,1411240,1411394,1417620,1423594,2509590,3177358,4423000],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=43077","id":10498783,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/08/06/shannon_v._rouse_builders.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T17:47:41.431912Z","date_created":"2024-08-06T12:04:05.754974Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3f4415d7ff36887521566475cebae4ec660a63f6","snippet":"              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                  No. COA23-318\n\n                                Filed 6 August 2024\n\nGaston County, No. 20 CVS 3983\n\nWILLIAM B. SHANNON and\nNANCY P. SHANNON, Plaintiffs,\n\n\n             v.\n\nROUSE BUILDERS, INC., Defendant.\n\n\n      Appeal by Plaintiffs from order entered 15 November 2022 by Judge James W.\n\nMorgan in Gaston County Superior Court.         Heard in the Court of Appeals 15\n\nNovember 2023.\n\n\n      Law Office of T","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10498783],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Summary Judgment Interlocutory Order Substantial Right Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices Affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10019477/greenbrier-place-llc-v-baldwin-design-consultants/","attorney":"","caseName":"Greenbrier Place, LLC v. Baldwin Design Consultants","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10019477,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-11-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-654","docket_id":60691727,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-29T15:53:06.227789Z","date_created":"2024-07-29T15:53:06.155412Z","score":{"bm25":20.19902}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1234966,1239589,1253647,1291620,1292955,1311961,1327689,1327716,1335481,1357135,1357187,1423594,2507165,4109649,6719569],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=40606","id":10486078,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/11/02/greenbrier_place_llc_v._baldwin_design_consultants.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T17:42:12.127398Z","date_created":"2024-07-29T15:53:06.157911Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5ef9882b1716d9d5cc0c1975a7ebe39d628c60d2","snippet":"                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                      2021-NCCOA-584\n\n                                        No. COA20-654\n\n                                    Filed 2 November 2021\n\n     Pitt County, No. 17 CVS 2569\n\n     GREENBRIER PLACE, LLC, Plaintiff,\n\n                  v.\n\n     BALDWIN DESIGN CONSULTANTS, P.A., and MICHAEL W. BALDWIN,\n     Defendants.\n\n\n           Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 16 March 2020 by Judge Jeffery B.\n\n     F","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10486078],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"partial summary judgment interlocutory appeal"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10328416/blakeman-v-cline/","attorney":"","caseName":"Blakeman v. Cline","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 381"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10328416,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-02-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"24 CO 0019","docket_id":69616640,"judge":"Robb","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-02-06T16:14:52.124171Z","date_created":"2025-02-06T16:14:52.077144Z","score":{"bm25":19.758974}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 381","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[252994,2690428,2700574,2701032,3683959,3759778,3767126,3784494,4330111,4409648,4420448,4442236,4676455,6755853,6772310,6774379,10569865],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/7/2025/2025-Ohio-381.pdf","id":10795004,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/02/05/blakeman_v._cline.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T19:05:15.884902Z","date_created":"2025-02-06T16:14:52.091548Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"60be933568d389f3bce4aaa7b7af6625045d9fb6","snippet":"[Cite as Blakeman v. Cline, 2025-Ohio-381.]\n\n\n\n\n             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n                            SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                               COLUMBIANA COUNTY\n\n                          BRYAN A. BLAKEMAN, TREASURER,\n\n                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n                                                  v.\n\n                          DONALD H. CLINE, TRUSTEE, et al.,\n\n                                      Defendants-Appellant.\n\n\n      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10795004],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Motion for relief from judgment; Civ.R. 60(B); right to redeem; interlocutory order; excusable neglect; abuse of discretion."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5294029/greenbrier-place-llc-v-baldwin-design-consultants/","attorney":"","caseName":"Greenbrier Place, LLC v. Baldwin Design Consultants","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5294029,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-11-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20-654","docket_id":60691727,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:34:44.026452Z","date_created":"2021-11-02T12:07:44.301566Z","score":{"bm25":19.654884}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=40606","id":5122591,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"bin/2021/11/02/greenbrier_place_llc_v._baldwin_design_consultants.bin","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T23:43:44.718584Z","date_created":"2021-11-02T12:07:44.303943Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"52efd7eef1caa4d64f25f9d8108befecc8b9c5fa","snippet":"                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                      2021-NCCOA-584\n\n                                        No. COA20-654\n\n                                    Filed 2 November 2021\n\n     Pitt County, No. 17 CVS 2569\n\n     GREENBRIER PLACE, LLC, Plaintiff,\n\n                  v.\n\n     BALDWIN DESIGN CONSULTANTS, P.A., and MICHAEL W. BALDWIN,\n     Defendants.\n\n\n           Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 16 March 2020 by Judge Jeffery B.\n\n     F","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5122591],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"partial summary judgment interlocutory appeal"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10321047/sipan-v-de-la-paz/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sipan v. De La Paz","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 232"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":10321047,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-01-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2024-G-0048","docket_id":69579983,"judge":"Eklund","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-27T19:13:13.905617Z","date_created":"2025-01-27T19:13:13.833152Z","score":{"bm25":19.571419}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 232","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[6761850,6761869,10743203],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2025/2025-Ohio-232.pdf","id":10787635,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/01/27/sipan_v._de_la_paz.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T02:38:35.755984Z","date_created":"2025-01-27T19:13:13.850643Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f3b55e35befbff8396778e242416d13675730980","snippet":"[Cite as Sipan v. De La Paz, 2025-Ohio-232.]\n\n                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n                     ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                            GEAUGA COUNTY\n\nKEN SIPAN,                                       CASE NO. 2024-G-0048\n\n                 Petitioner-Appellant,\n                                                 Civil Appeal from the\n        - vs -                                   Court of Common Pleas\n\nCOLLEEN DE LA PAZ,\n                                      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10787635],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"APPELLATE REVIEW - Separate and distinct entry needed; magistrate's decision alone is insufficient; interlocutory appeal; only judges not magistrates may terminate actions through a judgment."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9371495/robinholt-v-wilson/","attorney":"","caseName":"Robinholt v. Wilson","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 Ohio 248"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":9371495,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-01-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21CA011782","docket_id":66768732,"judge":"Teodosio","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T00:59:09.892929Z","date_created":"2023-01-30T15:06:48.460220Z","score":{"bm25":19.53435}},"neutralCite":"2023 Ohio 248","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3747579,4273026,4343610],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2023/2023-Ohio-248.pdf","id":9366971,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/01/30/robinholt_v._wilson.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:40:08.910737Z","date_created":"2023-01-30T15:06:48.467302Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8a8cf70990c1c774c51213bbd13974aa5b5f4596","snippet":"[Cite as Robinholt v. Wilson, 2023-Ohio-248.]\n\n\nSTATE OF OHIO                    )                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n                                 )ss:                 NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT\nCOUNTY OF LORAIN                 )\n\nLYNDA ROBINHOLT                                       C.A. No.       21CA011782\n\n        Appellant\n\n        v.                                            APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT\n                                                      ENTERED IN THE\nROBERT WILSON, e","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9366971],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"trust – fiduciary – successor trustee – issue preclusion – collateral estoppel – final judgment – final, appealable order – interlocutory – discovery order"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9510268/rm-contractors/","attorney":"","caseName":"RM Contractors","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9510268,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-06-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23-978","docket_id":68825015,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:33:52.349504Z","date_created":"2024-06-04T12:04:34.423441Z","score":{"bm25":19.489643}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1155109,1228120,1277294,1284185,1322417,1327997,1328681,1397134,1411240,1411394,1423594,2501088,3675928,4368847,4423000,6711203],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=43277","id":9976881,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/06/04/rm_contractors.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:32:31.360905Z","date_created":"2024-06-04T12:04:34.425935Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f401ad36729fefbb4206f9850fea5d8948c5ad00","snippet":"               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                   No. COA23-978\n\n                                  Filed 4 June 2024\n\nNash County, No. 21 CVS 1617\n\nRM CONTRACTORS, LLC, Plaintiff,\n\n              v.\n\nSANDRA L. WIGGINS, Defendant.\n\n\n        Appeal by Plaintiff from order entered 18 July 2023 by Judge Brenda G.\n\nBranch in Nash County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 February\n\n2024.\n\n\n        Battle, Winslow, Scott & Wiley, PA, by M. Greg Cr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9976881],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Interlocutory Order Substantial Right Claim of Lien Perfection, Priority Breach of Contract Summary Judgment."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10609857/hatcher-v-rodriguez/","attorney":"","caseName":"Hatcher v. Rodriguez","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10609857,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23-1108","docket_id":70571025,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-18T12:07:24.850666Z","date_created":"2025-06-18T12:07:24.785191Z","score":{"bm25":19.405313}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1214168,1238467,1241638,1251840,1255418,1266134,1290115,1316025,1316441,1322511,1395838,1411240,2391117,2726839,8901267,9585094,9626245,9855113],"download_url":"https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=43529","id":11076445,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/06/18/hatcher_v._rodriguez.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T20:38:17.088424Z","date_created":"2025-06-18T12:07:24.792077Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"13a0208300993b2b641a35fcbe286fac8621c505","snippet":"              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                  No. COA23-1108\n\n                                 Filed 18 June 2025\n\nScotland County, No. 22CVS269\n\nJAMES HATCHER, Plaintiff,\n\n             v.\n\nJEREMY R. RODRIGUEZ, Individually, and JEREMY R. RODRIGUEZ, in his\ncapacity as a member of Laurinburg Police Department, and CITY OF\nLAURINBURG, Defendants.\n\n\n      Appeal by defendants from interlocutory order entered 5 September 2023 by\n\nJudge Dawn M. Layton in S","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11076445],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"interlocutory appeal; denied motion for summary judgment; public official immunity; N.C.G.S. § 20-145; gross negligence."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9353089/coles-v-sugarleaf-labs/","attorney":"","caseName":"Coles v. Sugarleaf Labs","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9353089,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-11-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-116","docket_id":66670307,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T00:54:35.294053Z","date_created":"2022-12-20T14:06:17.479355Z","score":{"bm25":19.383139}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118394,625544,1233004,1235706,1257726,1285271,1312798,1315660,1337343,1343067,1381403,1384705,1404992,1409113,1420719,1423594,2396052,2501670,3671220,8413539],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=41652","id":9348561,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/11/01/coles_v._sugarleaf_labs_2.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:35:42.167347Z","date_created":"2022-12-20T14:06:17.480303Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"412e48eedfc8f5eb4dff8a0d84eedc7d726247ac","snippet":"                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                      2022-NCCOA-707\n\n                                       No. COA22-116\n\n                                   Filed 1 November 2022\n\n     Catawba County, No. 20 CVS 2090\n\n     TOD COLES, Plaintiff,\n\n                 v.\n\n     SUGARLEAF LABS, INC. (formerly known as Neptune Acquisition USA, Inc.), and\n     NEPTUNE WELLNESS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants.\n\n\n           Appeal by Plaintiff from an order entered","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9348561],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Motion to Compel Arbitration Revised Uniform Arbitration Act Federal Arbitration Act Interlocutory Order Final Judgment Appellate Jurisdiction"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9353184/grooms-prop-mgmt/","attorney":"","caseName":"Grooms Prop. Mgmt.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9353184,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-07-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-49","docket_id":66670405,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T00:54:36.625340Z","date_created":"2022-12-20T14:10:24.095630Z","score":{"bm25":19.287395}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1303875,1328630,1331917,1343067,1346766,1374285,1387044],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=41477","id":9348656,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/07/19/grooms_prop._mgmt._1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:35:49.598496Z","date_created":"2022-12-20T14:10:24.098425Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a007c6bfd56a1b61b0aec31ff6857feccb232d8a","snippet":"               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                2022-NCCOA-488\n\n                                  No. COA22-49\n\n                                Filed 19 July 2022\n\nMecklenburg County, Nos. 20 CVS 269, 20 CVS 300\n\nGROOMS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., DELORES BOWDIDGE, YEVETTE\nBOWDIDGE-JIMENEZ, PENNY LYNN CARROLL, YING DING, SHUO JIAO,\nDIANNE R. EASON, and BARBARA TONEY, Plaintiffs,\n\n            v.\n\nMUIRFIELD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION and WILLIAM               ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9348656],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Partial Summary Judgment Interlocutory Appeal Homeowners Association Declaration Contract Interpretation Petition for Writ of Certiorari"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9470350/rader-v-valeri/","attorney":"","caseName":"Rader v. Valeri","caseNameFull":"","citation":["223 Conn. App. 243"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9470350,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-01-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC45407","docket_id":68207383,"judge":"Bright; Alvord; Clark","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:52.304867Z","date_created":"2024-01-30T22:02:35.800934Z","score":{"bm25":19.194323}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3316212,4022728,4266305,4466957,4574928,4667623,4683294,6357891,7860856,9824247,9896946,9896959],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP223/223AP72.pdf","id":9928188,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/01/09/rader_v._valeri.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T09:16:24.248719Z","date_created":"2024-01-30T22:02:35.803293Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1c207dbebc6fbda112b510600819ed53d4588d9b","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action for interpleader to determine the defendants' rights to certain funds held in escrow in connection with the sale of two real properties, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury, where the court, Kowalski, J., granted the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory judgment of interpleader and ordered the plaintiff to deposit the funds with the clerk of the court; thereafter, the case was tried to the court, Shaban, J.; judgment for the defendant MSPD Downs Street, LLC, from which the named defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed. Alexander Copp, for the appellant (named defen- dant). Brandon B. Fontaine, for the appellee (defendant MSPD Downs Street, LLC).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9928188],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff stakeholder, an attorney who represented the defendant V in a real estate transaction in which V sold two real properties to the defendant M Co., brought an action for interpleader to determine the rights of V and M Co. to funds held in escrow until V obtained certain zoning approvals for the properties. The properties, which were adjacent to each other, were located in a federal opportunity zone, which provided the opportunity for tax deferment. M Co. made clear its intent to V that it desired to continue mixed commercial and residential use for the first property and to convert the second property from a single-family residence to a two-family residence. Various zoning and use approvals were required from the city of Danbury in order to use the second property as a two-family property. In order to qualify for the tax benefits of the opportunity zone, V and M Co. were required to close on the transaction within a six month window. In order to ensure the closing could take place within the time frame needed to obtain the tax defer- ment, the parties entered into a contract for sale containing a rider to the contract that called for the creation of an escrow agreement to hold $75,000 of the purchase price contingent on the receipt of specified zoning and use approvals on or before February 1, 2020. M Co. designated V as its agent relative to any application for a variance for the second property. The zoning board granted the application for the variance for the second property with the stipulation that there would be no street access to the front of the second property, the driveway to the front of the second property would need to be removed and replaced with grass, and access to parking for the second property would be available only through an easement over the first property in favor of the second property. M Co. did not agree to the creation of the easement. After trial, the court rendered judgment awarding the escrow funds to M Co. On appeal to this court, V claimed that the trial court made erroneous factual findings and improperly concluded that he failed to satisfy the contingency set forth in the escrow agreement requiring that he obtain a use variance for the second property. Held: 1. M Co. could not prevail on its claim that V's appeal was moot because V did not challenge each independent basis for the trial court's judgment; if this court were to agree with V's claim that the trial court misconstrued the escrow agreement as a matter of law, there would be no other basis on which to affirm the trial court's judgment and this court could grant V practical relief by either directing judgment in his favor or by ordering a new trial. 2. V could not prevail on his claim that the trial court made clearly erroneous factual findings; even if this court assumed that the challenged findings were clearly erroneous, the trial court did not rely on either of those findings in reaching its conclusion that V failed to satisfy a condition of the escrow agreement and, thus, any alleged error was harmless. 3. The trial court properly concluded that V failed to satisfy a condition of the escrow agreement and awarded the escrow funds to M Co.: the contract for sale and the escrow agreement were connected by reference and subject matter and, when read together to determine the intent of V and M Co., were unambiguous that, although M Co. designated V as its agent to obtain a use variance for the second property, it did not grant V any authority that allowed him to encumber the first property in pursuit of a use variance for the second property; moreover, the use variance V obtained for the second property was conditioned on the granting of an easement over the first property, which did not satisfy the terms of the escrow agreement or the contract for sale, which expressly required that V convey the properties without private restric- tive covenants or easements; furthermore, V's reliance on the fact that there was no dispute that the only access to the additional parking spaces behind the second property was across the first property as support for his suggestion that M Co. knew that a permanent easement would be required for the use variance for the second property lacked probative force because, with M Co. as the owner of both properties, no easement would be required to allow such access. Argued September 18, 2023—officially released January 9, 2024"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8436716/coles-v-sugarleaf-labs/","attorney":"","caseName":"Coles v. Sugarleaf Labs","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8436716,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-11-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-116","docket_id":65651220,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:11:59.452933Z","date_created":"2022-11-01T12:05:14.150435Z","score":{"bm25":19.15331}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118394,625544,1233004,1235706,1257726,1285271,1312798,1315660,1337343,1343067,1381403,1384705,1404992,1409113,1420719,1423594,2396052,2501670,3671220],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=41652","id":8407058,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/11/01/coles_v._sugarleaf_labs.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T16:22:47.088511Z","date_created":"2022-11-01T12:05:14.151316Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f5a449f20349971e1a3058aa4dfa6128ded7d078","snippet":"                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                      2022-NCCOA-707\n\n                                       No. COA22-116\n\n                                   Filed 1 November 2022\n\n     Catawba County, No. 20 CVS 2090\n\n     TOD COLES, Plaintiff,\n\n                 v.\n\n     SUGARLEAF LABS, INC. (formerly known as Neptune Acquisition USA, Inc.), and\n     NEPTUNE WELLNESS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants.\n\n\n           Appeal by Plaintiff from an order entered","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8407058],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Motion to Compel Arbitration Revised Uniform Arbitration Act Federal Arbitration Act Interlocutory Order Final Judgment Appellate Jurisdiction"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6236918/department-of-defense-response-to-interlocutory-decision-of-court-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"Department of Defense Response to Interlocutory Decision of Court of Appeals Regarding Statute Requiring Separation of Homosexual Service Members from Military","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6236918,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-03-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62601221,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:10.287746Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:12:03.582066Z","score":{"bm25":18.798021}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[84759,86062,109260,111037,111052,117986,162093,334136,342287,386968,439138,679951,686483,726744,775970,776115,2310113,2328963,2959731,3065022,6075571,7011544,8947033,9421708,9424208,9427571,9429969,9433107,9434125,9434429,9434509,9435108,9440137,9465893,9470970,9471686,9483145,9500037,9634079,9842118,9849594,9852423],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/2010-03-25-dod-acquiesce/download","id":6103800,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2010/03/25/department_of_defense_response_to_interlocutory_decision_of_court_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T05:16:44.949337Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:12:03.584490Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5a050bdbb617ed95431b8f8f1e342b26e4427f36","snippet":" Department of Defense Response to Interlocutory Decision of\n Court of Appeals Regarding Statute Requiring Separation of\n        Homosexual Service Members from Military\nFollowing the interlocutory decision of a court of appeals regarding the statute requiring\n   the separation of certain gay and lesbian service members from the military, the De-\n   partment of Defense is not legally required to revise its administrative procedures and\n   policies in a manner that might preclude separations with","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6103800],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Following the interlocutory decision of a court of appeals regarding the statute requiring the separation of certain gay and lesbian service members from the military, the Department of Defense is not legally required to revise its administrative procedures and policies in a manner that might preclude separations within the circuit that would otherwise be mandated by the statute. The Department of Defense is also not legally prohibited from acquiescing in the decision, although such a policy would appear to lack direct Executive Branch precedent and arguably would be in some tension with the Executive Branch's usual practice of implementing and defending statutes that are subject to constitutional challenge."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6624685/grooms-prop-mgmt/","attorney":"","caseName":"Grooms Prop. Mgmt.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6624685,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-07-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-49","docket_id":63601188,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:29:29.011534Z","date_created":"2022-07-19T14:06:11.771129Z","score":{"bm25":18.785137}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1303875,1328630,1331917,1343067,1346766,1374285,1387044],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=41477","id":6501043,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/07/19/grooms_prop._mgmt..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T20:13:20.547560Z","date_created":"2022-07-19T14:06:11.772189Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"393210d0a8a3cb77fdfe1ae0a629b04c1fae6c4c","snippet":"               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                2022-NCCOA-488\n\n                                  No. COA22-49\n\n                                Filed 19 July 2022\n\nMecklenburg County, Nos. 20 CVS 269, 20 CVS 300\n\nGROOMS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., DELORES BOWDIDGE, YEVETTE\nBOWDIDGE-JIMENEZ, PENNY LYNN CARROLL, YING DING, SHUO JIAO,\nDIANNE R. EASON, and BARBARA TONEY, Plaintiffs,\n\n            v.\n\nMUIRFIELD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION and WILLIAM               ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6501043],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Partial Summary Judgment Interlocutory Appeal Homeowners Association Declaration Contract Interpretation Petition for Writ of Certiorari"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4729423/starboard-resources-inc-v-henry/","attorney":"","caseName":"Starboard Resources, Inc. v. Henry","caseNameFull":"","citation":["196 Conn. App. 80"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":4729423,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-02-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC41922","docket_id":16878856,"judge":"Lavine; Prescott; Moll","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:47:57.721583Z","date_created":"2020-02-24T13:02:42.280227Z","score":{"bm25":18.70424}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2156332,2167396,2349850,2446934,4231570,4382856,4450679,7848536,7858767,9429475,9433078,9532051],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP196/196AP142.pdf","id":4509750,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/02/25/starboard_resources_inc._v._henry.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T20:30:17.577695Z","date_created":"2020-02-24T13:02:42.284069Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"de791a6c06f8f74748dc7e6d59b6ef0518e01130","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action for interpleader to determine the defendants' rights to certain shares of common stock of the plaintiff, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk and transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket, where the court, Genuario, J., granted the motion to stay the proceed- ings pending arbitration filed by the defendant Gregory Imbruce et al.; thereafter, the court, Lee, J., denied the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant Giddings Investments, LLC, granted the motion to remand the matter to the arbitrator filed by the defendant Charles Henry III et al., granted the motion for an interlocutory judgment of interpleader filed by the defendant Charles Henry III et al. and rendered judgment thereon, from which the defendant Gregory Imbruce et al. appealed to this court. Affirmed. Richard S. Gora, with whom, on the brief, was Nicole O'Neil, for the appellants (defendant Gregory Imbruce et al.). David W. Rubin, with whom, on the brief, was Jona- than D. Jacobson, for the appellees (Bradford Higgins et al.).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4509750],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiff sought an interlocutory judgment of interpleader to determine the rights of the defendants, certain individuals and companies (Group I defendants, Group H defendants and Group S defendants), to certain shares of the plaintiff's common stock. The Group H defendants had commenced two actions, which were consolidated with the interpleader action, against the Group I defendants and the plaintiff, claiming, inter alia, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages in connection with the investment by the Group H defendants in three limited liability partnerships. Thereafter, the Group H defendants' actions were referred to an arbitrator, who issued an award in favor of the Group H defendants, which the trial court con- firmed. Subsequently, in the interpleader action, the Group H defendants filed a motion for an interlocutory judgment of interpleader, asserting that, pursuant to the arbitration award, they were the rightful owners of the disputed shares of stock. The Group H defendants also filed a motion to remand in which they requested that, if the trial court found that the arbitration award was ambiguous as to the ownership of the shares, the court remand the matter to the arbitrator for clarification regarding that issue. The defendant G Co. thereafter file a motion to dismiss the interpleader action on the ground that it was moot. Following a hearing, the trial court denied G Co.'s motion to dismiss, granted the Group H defendants' motions to remand and for an interlocutory judgment of interpleader, and rendered judgment thereon. On the Group I defendants' appeal to this court, held: 1. The Group I defendants' claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the interpleader action on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing because its transfer agent, who was not a party to the action, allegedly was holding the subject shares on behalf of the plaintiff was unavailing; there was no appellate authority that supported the proposition that an interpleader action is jurisdictionally defective if the property at issue is held by a nonparty transfer agent of a named party. 2. The Group I defendants' could not prevail on their claims that the trial court improperly denied G Co.'s motion to dismiss and improperly ren- dered the interlocutory judgment of interpleader; although the Group I defendants asserted that the interpleader action was moot because the Group S defendants did not have a viable adverse claim to the subject shares, it was premature, at the current stage of the proceedings, for this court to consider the merits of any of the parties' purportedly adverse claims to the shares. 3. The trial court properly granted the Group H defendants' motion to remand the matter to the arbitrator: contrary to the Group I defendants' claim that by remanding the matter to the arbitrator, that court improperly opened and vacated the arbitration award, the court properly exercised its authority to remand the matter to the arbitrator to clarify the arbitra- tion award as to the ownership of the subject shares; moreover, the court did not violate the doctrine of functus officio, as the varying positions of the Group I defendants and Group S defendants regarding whether the arbitrator had determined the ownership of the shares demonstrated that the arbitration award was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Argued October 18, 2019—officially released February 25, 2020"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8509878/coles-v-sugarleaf-labs/","attorney":"","caseName":"Coles v. Sugarleaf Labs","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8509878,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-11-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22-116","docket_id":65738999,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:42:54.171865Z","date_created":"2022-11-08T15:04:40.767258Z","score":{"bm25":18.616236}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118394,625544,1233004,1235706,1257726,1285271,1312798,1315660,1337343,1343067,1381403,1384705,1404992,1409113,1420719,1423594,2396052,2501670,3671220,8413539],"download_url":"http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=41652","id":8482293,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/11/01/coles_v._sugarleaf_labs_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T16:56:15.254671Z","date_created":"2022-11-08T15:04:40.770583Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"89def8b30802a2e9b1669624c100ab234a6d4dc4","snippet":"                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n                                      2022-NCCOA-707\n\n                                       No. COA22-116\n\n                                   Filed 1 November 2022\n\n     Catawba County, No. 20 CVS 2090\n\n     TOD COLES, Plaintiff,\n\n                 v.\n\n     SUGARLEAF LABS, INC. (formerly known as Neptune Acquisition USA, Inc.), and\n     NEPTUNE WELLNESS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants.\n\n\n           Appeal by Plaintiff from an order entered","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8482293],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Motion to Compel Arbitration Revised Uniform Arbitration Act Federal Arbitration Act Interlocutory Order Final Judgment Appellate Jurisdiction"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10332831/navajo-nation-v-united-states/","attorney":"","caseName":"NAVAJO NATION v. United States","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10332831,"court":"United States Court of Federal Claims","court_citation_string":"Fed. Cl.","court_id":"uscfc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-02-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21-1746","docket_id":69638750,"judge":"Zachary N. Somers","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-02-13T21:02:44.629965Z","date_created":"2025-02-13T21:02:44.570847Z","score":{"bm25":18.519684}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[90821,104095,105410,110244,145889,211716,397081,773649,783037,790051,1040993,1576897,1963375,2463272,2482159,2577446,2790979,3203225,4410484,4526620,6318383,6643562,6646915,6648750,6648966,6650586,6652027,6652059,6652286,6653172,6653271,6654425,6654585,6658719,6658814,6659947,6661778,6662487,6662615,6824836,6826896,6827093,8705543,8738978,8913756,9027287,9421125,9421318,9421326,9427848,9429303,9434366,9434369,9470414,10290947],"download_url":"https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cv1746-43-0","id":10799419,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/02/13/navajo_nation_v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-08T04:02:12.202044Z","date_created":"2025-02-13T21:02:44.586174Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9d42c7c049811fa0f080bc73fac655b2715463c0","snippet":"  In the United States Court of Federal Claims\n                                              No. 21-1746\n                                       (Filed: February 13, 2025)\n\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n                                    *\nNAVAJO NATION, et al.,              *\n                                    *\n                  Plaintiffs,       *\n                                    *\n      v.                            *\n                                    *\nTHE UNITED STATES,      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10799419],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"REPORTED OPINION denying [38] Motion for Reconsideration; denying [38] Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b); denying [38] Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal. The parties shall file their preliminary joint status report on or before 3/17/2025"}]}