Supreme Court Slip Opinions
Signup For Email Notification
Court of Appeals Opinions
Headnote Index for 2024
Case Summaries/Headnotes
Mandate: 18 July 2024
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 28 June 2024
Case Title / Description
Whether plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a Corum claim under Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution.
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the trial court erred in denying visitation to respondent-mother.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 159 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 2024
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 23 May 2024
Case Title / Description
Whether persons involved in the preparation and filing of election protests are entitled to the absolute privilege in a defamation action when they did not subsequently participate in the election protest hearing as a party, counsel, or witness.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to intervene ex mero motu during the prosecutor's closing arguments and whether the jury instructions correctly explained defense of habitation and first-degree murder by lying in wait.
Whether a defendant is required to give notice of intent to appeal to preserve the right to appeal under N.C.G.S. 15A-979(b) when pleading guilty as charged.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in vacating the trial court's judgment because the indictment was insufficient.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's decision to exclude evidence under Rule 412 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.
Whether plaintiffs have taxpayer standing to challenge a city's red light camera program, and whether the framework used to fund that camera program violates Article IX, sec. 7 of North Carolina's Constitution.
Whether the trial court exercised discretion under N.C.G.S. 15A-1233(a) when denying in part a jury request for trial transcripts.
Whether the superior court erred in finding that a district attorney had an actual conflict of interest in prosecuting a defendant based solely on the alleged victim's position as county manager.
Whether the indictment charging defendant with second-degree rape failed to sufficiently allege the elements of the crime, and whether such alleged pleading deficiencies affect the jurisdiction of a trial court.
Whether a unilateral amendment made pursuant to a change-of-terms provision violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and renders a contract illusory.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing an entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on plaintiff's complaint seeking to quiet title via declaratory judgment, arguing application of the doctrine of equitable subrogation.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the trial court failed to follow statutory procedures in granting petitioners' request for copies of law enforcement recordings.
Whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the plain error standard of review to evidentiary challenges and the grossly improper standard of review to statements at closing argument.
Whether appellee is a manufacturing industry or plant entitled to a tax exemption despite using the majority of the Hot Mixed Asphalt it produces for its own contracting purposes.
Dismissal of an appeal from an interlocutory order from the North Carolina Business Court.
Whether N.C.G.S. 7B-903(a1) requires an ICPC home study to rule out an out-of-state placement before making an in-state placement.
Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment against parties asserting adverse possession where the claimants mistakenly believed they owned the disputed tract and the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to them did not show permissive use.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 165 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 April 2024
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 22 March 2024
Case Title / Description
Whether moving to claim exempt property after entry of a judgment without raising a defense of insufficient service of process is a general appearance in the underlying action that waives objections to personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of service of process.
Whether plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known of their injuries and defendant's alleged fraud such that the statute of limitations was not tolled and plaintiffs' claims are time barred.
Whether a lawsuit filed against the insured triggers a duty to defend because it concerns an 'advertising injury' under the terms of an excess policy of insurance issued by the insurance company and whether exclusions apply.
Whether the Court of Appeals properly held that a municipality waived governmental immunity because the complaint sufficiently plead waiver, and whether summary judgment was properly awarded for a municipality and a police officer on claims brought under N.C.G.S. 20-145.
Whether historical preservation group's complaint against the City of Asheville was sufficient to survive dismissal.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by not placing the burden on the defendant to prove he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a house.
Whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper legal test to determine whether a medical treatment is directly related to a compensable injury in a workers' compensation case.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that defendant's compulsory counterclaim for injuries sustained in an automobile accident was barred by the statute of limitations established in N.C.G.S. 1-52(16).
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by certifying a class.
Whether the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for appropriate relief.
Whether a plaintiff may pursue a direct constitutional claim under the North Carolina Constitution against state actors for monetary damages in response to a violation of his right to a speedy trial.
Whether an underinsured motorist coverage claimant who owned the at fault vehicle but was not the tortfeasor may stack multiple underinsured motorist coverage policies inter policy when determining whether his vehicle is an underinsured highway vehicle under N.C.G.S. 20 279.21(b)(4).
Whether post-separation conduct can be used to corroborate pre-separation conduct in alienation of affection and criminal conversation claims and whether the pre-separation evidence in this case gave rise to more than mere conjecture that defendant was plaintiff's wife's alleged paramour.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing an entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claims of common law negligence, negligence per se, violation of the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act, and breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation hearings.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's orders on defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.
Whether plaintiff demonstrated genuine issues of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment on claims that defendant North Carolina Department Health and Human Services arbitrarily and capriciously placed plaintiff on Medicaid prepayment review in violation of its state constitutional substantive due process and equal protection rights.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the trial court's order adjudicating as neglected and dependent a child whose father abandoned his pursuit of her after she ran across a busy road.
Review of recommendation for suspension.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 268 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.