resolution by a future court and refrain from addressing Defendants’ contention that we have jurisdiction to hear their appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § l-277(b). III. Standard of Review Having determined that this Court has jurisdiction to review Defendants’ appeal, we now consider, also as a matter of first impression, the appropriate standard of review to apply to the trial court’s comity decision. Defendants contend that the question of whether a North Carolina court should extend comity is a question of law reviewable de novo. For the following reasons, we agree. As an initial matter, we note that the decision of whether to extend comity to a sister state’s sovereign immunity request is solely determined by our state’s common law. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 416 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the United States Constitution,
holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states holding that the united states constitution does not entitle one state to sovereign immunity in a second states courts and stating a claim of immunity in another sovereigns courts    necessarily implicates the power and authority of a second sovereign its source must be found either in an agreement or in the voluntary decision of the second to respect the dignity of the first as a matter of comity holding that the ats does not waive the united states sovereign immunity holding that federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim against the united states or one of its agencies absent a clear waiver of sovereign immunity holding that the united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity