Dep't of Transp. v. RiddleÂ, 253 N.C. App. 20

DOT instituted condemnation proceedings in 2012 to take portions of Lots 2 and 7 for rerouting NC Hwy 24; no physical takings occurred from Lots 1 or Lots 3–6.
Joseph Riddle originally owned a 26-acre parcel subdivided into Lots 1–7; Lot 1 contains an operating shopping center (Food Lion, Family Dollar) held by an entity he controls; Lot 5 was sold in 2005.
DOT’s plan rerouted highway traffic behind the shopping center; the replaced highway portion would remain a secondary access road.
The narrow legal question is which of the Riddles’ lots constitute the “entire tract” for computing just compensation under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-112(2).
The trial court ruled Lots 1, 2, and 7 comprise the entire tract; it excluded Lots 3–6. DOT cross-appealed to exclude Lot 1; Riddles appealed seeking inclusion of Lots 3–6.
This is an interlocutory appeal of a § 136-108 pretrial order deciding unity-of-trac t issues before a jury determines damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What parcels constitute the "entire tract" for measuring just compensation after partial taking of Lots 2 and 7?	DOT: limit the entire tract to only Lots 2 and 7 (exclude Lot 1).	Riddles: include all lots (1–7) or at least Lots 1–7 as an integrated economic unit; alternatively include Lots 3–6.	Court: Lots 1, 2 and 7 were the only lots unified below; affirmed exclusion of Lots 3–6 but reversed inclusion of Lot 1 — only Lots 2 and 7 should be used to compute compensation.
Whether the interlocutory pretrial order is immediately appealable (affects a substantial right).	DOT: implicit that pretrial unity rulings can be appealed.	Riddles: prior decisions suggest interlocutory unity rulings may be reviewed after final judgment; jurisdiction is nuanced.	Court: exercised appellate jurisdiction, concluding the order affects a substantial right and proceeding to the merits.

N.C. State Highway Comm’n v. Nuckles, 271 N.C. 1 (1967) (distinguishes issues over land actually taken from other pretrial questions)
Dep’t of Transp. v. Rowe, 351 N.C. 172 (1999) (pretrial rulings on the scope of the "entire tract" may be reviewed after final judgment; whether interlocutory ruling affects a substantial right depends on facts)
Dep’t of Transp. v. Airlie Park, Inc., 156 N.C. App. 63 (2003) (treated pretrial unification as a vital preliminary issue and exercised appellate review)
Town of Midland v. Wayne, 368 N.C. 55 (2015) (decided as a matter of law that adjacent parcel was part of the taken tract)
Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Comm’n, 250 N.C. 378 (1959) (unity of ownership, physical unity, and unity of use guide whether parcels form a single tract; unity of use often controlling)
Bd. of Transp. v. Martin, 296 N.C. 20 (1978) (unity of use requires present, actual, and permanent use making the taken parcel reasonably and substantially necessary to enjoyment of remaining parcel)
Board of Transp. v. Terminal Warehouse Corp., 300 N.C. 700 (1980) (mere loss of traffic or redistribution of traffic patterns generally produces noncompensable damage when reasonable access remains)
Yancey v. N.C. State Highway, 222 N.C. 106 (1942) (constitutional right to just compensation on public takings)