Supreme Court Slip Opinions
Signup For Email Notification
Court of Appeals Opinions
Headnote Index for 2025
Case Summaries/Headnotes
Mandate: 6 November 2025
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 17 October 2025
Case Title / Description
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that defendant, a negligent truck driver, had adequate time and means to avoid injuring plaintiff, a contributorily negligent pedestrian.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment based on lack of proximate cause.
Whether the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress cell-site location information.
Whether courts interpreting state rules and regulations must defer to the legal interpretation of the state agency responsible for promulgating those rules and regulations.
Whether reliance is reasonable in a claim for fraud in the inducement when the complaining party failed to conduct any material due diligence on the representations and warranties upon which the fraud claim is based.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming an administrative law judge's determination that a certificate of need award was improper.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding step one of the Batson inquiry was moot.
Whether the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources, unlawfully incorporated certain conditions into general permits for animal waste management systems without satisfying the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Whether defendants had a right of immediate appellate review of the trial court's interlocutory order denying defendants' motions to dismiss based on a claim of statutory immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act.
Whether probable cause supported a warrant to search defendant's vehicle.
Whether the Court of Appeals properly concluded the trial court prejudicially erred when it excluded a handwritten note written by the complaining witness.
Whether N.C.G.S. 132-1.4A provides the exclusive procedure by which a criminal defendant in district court may request release of law enforcement agency recordings covered by the statute.
Whether the Business Court erred in dismissing a claim for judicial dissolution under N.C.G.S. 55-14-30(2)(ii) for lack of standing when the plaintiff-shareholder held the contractual right to exercise a put option and sell their shares back to the company at fair market value.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 155 OTHER MATTERS. THE OTHER MATTERS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, NOTICES OF APPEALS BASED UPON CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN DEATH CASES, DEATH STAYS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI IN OTHER CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF SUPERSEDEAS, MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY STAYS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS, PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, MOTIONS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF, AND DIRECT APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION AND THE UTILITIES COMMISSION. THE COURT ALSO CONSIDERS MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND MOTIONS TO AMEND ON A DAILY BASIS. SUCH "ROUTINE" MOTIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PETITION LIST PUBLISHED BY THE COURT EACH MONTH.
Mandate: 11 September 2025
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 22 August 2025
Case Title / Description
Whether the Business Court erred in granting a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, granting a motion to strike portions of an affidavit on summary judgment, and disregarding a purported expert report on summary judgment; and whether the Business Court erred in granting a motion for summary judgment, because a partnership did not exist.
Whether title to property is revested in the landowner if a government entity takes the property for a private purpose and whether the trial court may enter a mandatory injunction to restore the property to its original condition where the landowner has not requested injunctive relief in the pleadings.
Whether title to property is revested in the landowner if a government entity takes the property for a private purpose and whether the trial court may enter a mandatory injunction to restore the property to its original condition where the landowner has not requested injunctive relief in the pleadings.
Whether the Sheriffs' Education and Training Standards Commission arbitrarily or capriciously denied petitioner's application for justice officer certification upon concluding that he lacked the good moral character required of deputy sheriffs.
Whether courts interpreting state statutes must defer to the legal interpretation of the state agency responsible for implementing those statutes.
Whether the Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to decide as-applied constitutional challenges to North Carolina's tax statutes.
Whether plaintiffs' Corum claims, which allege that restrictions imposed on bars during the COVID 19 pandemic violated the Fruits of the Their Own Labor Clause and Law of the Land Clause, are colorable such that sovereign immunity does not bar their suit.
Whether defendant voluntarily consented to law enforcement officers' search of his backpack.
Whether N.C.G.S. 25A-37, the anti-referral sales statute, only protects a purchaser who shows 'inducement' and whether the trial court erred in certifying a class.
Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law when his risk of being struck by a golf ball at a driving range was open and obvious.
Whether escalating conflict and an unwillingness to communicate for the welfare of the child constitutes a substantial change in circumstances supporting a modification of a child custody order.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, where the jury determined that homeowners' chickens were not household pets and therefore were prohibited by a restrictive covenant barring poultry.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in vacating an order of summary judgment and whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the state statutory claims.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by vacating the neglect adjudication of a juvenile whose sibling was abused.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 206 OTHER MATTERS. THE OTHER MATTERS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, NOTICES OF APPEALS BASED UPON CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN DEATH CASES, DEATH STAYS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI IN OTHER CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF SUPERSEDEAS, MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY STAYS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS, PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, MOTIONS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF, AND DIRECT APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION AND THE UTILITIES COMMISSION. THE COURT ALSO CONSIDERS MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND MOTIONS TO AMEND ON A DAILY BASIS. SUCH "ROUTINE" MOTIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PETITION LIST PUBLISHED BY THE COURT EACH MONTH.
Mandate: 12 June 2025
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 23 May 2025
Case Title / Description
Whether defendant satisfied the prejudice prong for plain error where a law enforcement officer testifying as a lay witness gave his opinion regarding defendant's intent at the time of an accident.
Review of recommendation for censure.
Whether the Court of Appeals' majority erred in holding that the trial court did not commit structural error in denying defendant's court-appointed counsel's motion to withdraw for defendant to hire counsel of his own choosing.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the superior court's order in which it determined that petitioners are entitled to receive adoption assistance benefits several years after the adoption was finalized.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in vacating the trial court's adjudication order and remanding for additional factual findings about how respondent-mother's actions impaired or substantially risked impairing the welfare of her juvenile daughter.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that defendant must pay an employer-funded 5% contribution under N.C.G.S. 143-166.50(e).
Whether substitution of an alternate juror during guilt deliberations in a criminal trial violates a defendant's constitutional right to a jury of twelve.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by determining the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury once on first-degree forcible sexual offense where the defendant was indicted for two counts of first-degree forcible sexual offense.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing dismissal of a claim for negligence at the 12(b)(6) stage based on contributory negligence and in affirming dismissal of a claim for punitive damages.
Whether public official immunity applies to a medical director at a state university and whether summary judgment was proper.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 133 OTHER MATTERS. THE OTHER MATTERS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, NOTICES OF APPEALS BASED UPON CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN DEATH CASES, DEATH STAYS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI IN OTHER CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF SUPERSEDEAS, MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY STAYS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS, PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, MOTIONS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF, AND DIRECT APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION AND THE UTILITIES COMMISSION. THE COURT ALSO CONSIDERS MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND MOTIONS TO AMEND ON A DAILY BASIS. SUCH "ROUTINE" MOTIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PETITION LIST PUBLISHED BY THE COURT EACH MONTH.
Mandate: 10 April 2025
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 21 March 2025
Case Title / Description
Whether the Court of Appeals conducted an appropriate review of the sentencing court's conclusion that defendant's sentence was constitutionally sufficient under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).
Whether defendant's J.E.B. claim is preserved and whether the claim was procedurally barred.
Whether the sentencing court's findings of the mitigating factors under N.C.G.S. 15A-1340.19B support defendant's juvenile sentence to life without parole, and whether defendant's claims under J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) are procedurally barred under N.C.G.S. 15A-1419(a)(3).
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a land developer was not entitled to the benefit of permit choice based on its determination of application completeness and the existence of a now-expired moratorium.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of the University's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of contract claims.
Whether the trial court complied with N.C.G.S. 15A-1242 where it informed a defendant who sought to proceed pro se only of the harshest sentences he faced and miscalculated the maximum sentence by two years, but both the potential sentence and the actual sentence amounted to life in prison.
Whether the trial court complied with N.C.G.S. 15A-1242 where it informed a defendant of a miscalculated the maximum sentence.
Whether defendants adequately preserved arguments in their post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict where those arguments were not specifically articulated in their corresponding motion for directed verdict.
Whether the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of the State's expert witness.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's decision to classify a tract of land as defendant's separate property.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the trial court did not err in (1) denying defendant's motion to dismiss the charge under N.C.G.S. 90-95(h)(4) and (2) instructing the jury that opioids were included in the definition of 'opium or opiate' under N.C.G.S. 90-95(h)(4).
Whether the federal PREP Act preempts all state law claims, including those brought under the state constitution.
Whether unacceptable personal conduct provided just cause for termination of a state employee.
Whether the Business Court erred in ruling that the parties' intrafamilial dispute fell outside the scope of their arbitration agreement with Charles Schwab.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 275 OTHER MATTERS. THE OTHER MATTERS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, NOTICES OF APPEALS BASED UPON CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN DEATH CASES, DEATH STAYS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI IN OTHER CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF SUPERSEDEAS, MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY STAYS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS, PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, MOTIONS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF, AND DIRECT APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION AND THE UTILITIES COMMISSION. THE COURT ALSO CONSIDERS MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND MOTIONS TO AMEND ON A DAILY BASIS. SUCH "ROUTINE" MOTIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PETITION LIST PUBLISHED BY THE COURT EACH MONTH.
Mandate: 20 February 2025
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 31 January 2025
Case Title / Description
Whether the Court of Appeals failed to consider defendant's state constitutional challenge to his sentences of life imprisonment without parole and whether the resentencing order complied with state constitutional requirements.
Whether the Business Court erred in ordering an entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on plaintiffs' complaint seeking judicial dissolution of the manager-managed LLCs, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 57D-6-02(2)(i), because continued operation of the LLCs in conformance with the operating agreements was 'not practicable.'
Whether the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules barred admission of cell phone records at trial.
Whether section 4.2(b) of the SAFE Child Act's revival of claims 'for child sexual abuse otherwise time-barred' by a three-year statute of limitations encompasses claims against defendants who did not directly commit the alleged abuse.
Whether an act of the General Assembly that purports to set aside a final judgment of the judicial branch violates separation of powers principles in the North Carolina Constitution.
Whether an act of the General Assembly that purports to set aside a final judgment of the judicial branch violates separation of powers principles in the North Carolina Constitution.
Whether the SAFE Child Act's revival of previously time-barred civil claims was facially unconstitutional.