Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. SIEGFRIED CORPORATION, A North Carolina Corporation d/b/a DAVID'S (a/k/a CHAPS), Also DAVID'S -1054 CHARLOTTE, INC. d/b/a DAVID'S ADULT BOOK STORE (a/k/a CHAPS), RONNIE LAMAR CHASTAIN, CLIFTON B. VANN, SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, A North Carolina Corporation; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. EIGHTY NINE FORTY ONE EAST INDEPENDENCE, INC., A South Carolina Corporation, d/b/a EAST INDEPENDENCE BOOK STORE, ROSALIND FOWLER CAMPBELL, JAMES BARNES HATHAWAY, and RICHARD TIMOTHY ALLEN, ROGER GRIGGS, and STEVE WINNICK; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. 6101 WILKINSON BOULEVARD, INC., d/b/a AIRPORT NEWS AND TOBACCO, JAMES B. HATHAWAY, ROGER GRIGGS, STEVE WINNICK, EDOUARD STOCKLI, URS STAEHLI, LAURIE INDUSTRIES COMPANY, New York Corporations; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. CINEMA BLUE OF CHARLOTTE, INC., A North Carolina Corporation d/b/a CINEMA BLUE THEATRE, DAVID M. SCHOCK, THOMAS MICHAEL, and JAMIE T. HERRIN
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1986-09-02
Citations: 82 N.C. App. 678
Docket Number: No. 8626SC138
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. SIEGFRIED CORPORATION, A North Carolina Corporation d/b/a DAVID’S (a/k/a CHAPS), Also DAVID’S -1054 CHARLOTTE, INC. d/b/a DAVID’S ADULT BOOK STORE (a/k/a CHAPS), RONNIE LAMAR CHASTAIN, CLIFTON B. VANN, SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, A North Carolina Corporation STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. EIGHTY NINE FORTY ONE EAST INDEPENDENCE, INC., A South Carolina Corporation, d/b/a EAST INDEPENDENCE BOOK STORE, ROSALIND FOWLER CAMPBELL, JAMES BARNES HATHAWAY, and RICHARD TIMOTHY ALLEN, ROGER GRIGGS, and STEVE WINNICK STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. 6101 WILKINSON BOULEVARD, INC., d/b/a AIRPORT NEWS AND TOBACCO, JAMES B. HATHAWAY, ROGER GRIGGS, STEVE WINNICK, EDOUARD STOCKLI, URS STAEHLI, LAURIE INDUSTRIES COMPANY, New York Corporations STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. CINEMA BLUE OF CHARLOTTE, INC., A North Carolina Corporation d/b/a CINEMA BLUE THEATRE, DAVID M. SCHOCK, THOMAS MICHAEL, and JAMIE T. HERRIN
Judges: Judges Webb and Wells concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. SIEGFRIED CORPORATION, A North Carolina Corporation d/b/a DAVID’S (a/k/a CHAPS), Also DAVID’S -1054 CHARLOTTE, INC. d/b/a DAVID’S ADULT BOOK STORE (a/k/a CHAPS), RONNIE LAMAR CHASTAIN, CLIFTON B. VANN, SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, A North Carolina Corporation STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. EIGHTY NINE FORTY ONE EAST INDEPENDENCE, INC., A South Carolina Corporation, d/b/a EAST INDEPENDENCE BOOK STORE, ROSALIND FOWLER CAMPBELL, JAMES BARNES HATHAWAY, and RICHARD TIMOTHY ALLEN, ROGER GRIGGS, and STEVE WINNICK STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. 6101 WILKINSON BOULEVARD, INC., d/b/a AIRPORT NEWS AND TOBACCO, JAMES B. HATHAWAY, ROGER GRIGGS, STEVE WINNICK, EDOUARD STOCKLI, URS STAEHLI, LAURIE INDUSTRIES COMPANY, New York Corporations STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, On Relation of Peter Gilchrist, District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District v. CINEMA BLUE OF CHARLOTTE, INC., A North Carolina Corporation d/b/a CINEMA BLUE THEATRE, DAVID M. SCHOCK, THOMAS MICHAEL, and JAMIE T. HERRIN
No. 8626SC138
(Filed 2 September 1986)
Appeal and Error § 6.2— appeal from interlocutory orders — dismissed
An appeal from orders requiring defendants to produce documents and things requested by plaintiff, denying defendants’ motions to suppress evidence, and denying defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of a prior adversary hearing was dismissed as being from interlocutory orders not affecting substantial rights.
Appeal by defendants 1054 Charlotte, Inc.; Eighty-Nine Forty-One East Independence, Inc.; 6101 Wilkinson Boulevard, Inc.; Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc.; Steve Winick; Roger Griggs; David Schoch and James Barnes Hathaway from Gaines, Judge. Orders entered 30 September 1985 and 3 October 1985 in Superi- or Court, MECKLENBURG County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 August 1986.
Robert F. Thomas, Jr., Paul L. Whitfield, and J. Baron Groshom for plaintiff, appellee.
Gillespie & Lesesne, by Louis L. Lesesne, Jr., and Arthur M. Schwartz, P. C., by Arthur M. Schwartz and Bradley J. Reich, for defendants, appellants 105A Charlotte, Inc.; Eighty-Nine Forty-One East Independence, Inc.; 6101 Wilkinson Boulevard, Inc.; Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc.; and Steve Winick.
Ferguson, Stein, Watt, Wallas & Adkins, P.A., by John W. Gresham, for defendants, appellants Roger Griggs, David Schoch and James Barnes Hathaway.

Opinion:
HEDRICK, Chief Judge.
Defendants have appealed from the following interlocutory orders: 1) Orders entered 30 September 1985 ordering defendants 1054 Charlotte, Inc.; Eighty-Nine Forty-One East Independence, Inc.; 6101 Wilkinson Boulevard, Inc.; and Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc. to produce documents and things requested by plaintiff; 2) orders entered 3 October 1985 denying all defendants' motions to suppress evidence; and 3) orders entered 3 October 1985 denying all defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of a prior adversary hearing. The record on appeal was filed in this Court on 3 February 1986. After briefs were filed, plaintiff, appellee made a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that no appeal lies from these interlocutory orders. Ruling on the motion to dismiss was referred to the panel to which the case is assigned.
The case was assigned to this panel and calendared for hearing on the date listed above. This appeal is dismissed as being from interlocutory orders not affecting a substantial right.
Appeal dismissed; writ of supersedeas and temporary stay dissolved, and the cause is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.
Judges Webb and Wells concur.