Supreme Court Slip Opinions
Signup For Email Notification
Court of Appeals Opinions
Headnote Index for 2026
Case Summaries/Headnotes
Mandate: 3 September 2026
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 14 August 2026
Case Title / Description
Whether it is plain error to admit improper vouching testimony at trial, and whether an incorrect statutory citation is fatal to a criminal indictment.
Whether defendant is procedurally barred from pursuing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a motion for appropriate relief when he failed to raise such claim in his previous direct appeal.
Whether State v. Harbison's per se prejudice standard survives the United States Supreme Court's decision in Florida v. Nixon.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and defamation failed to satisfy the notice pleading requirement.
Whether the personal goodwill of a sole practitioner law firm may be classified as marital property for equitable distribution purposes.
Whether the State presented sufficient evidence of constructive possession to survive defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon.
Whether the trial court's juror substitution after deliberations began violated defendant's constitutional right to a twelve-person jury and whether defendant waived his Fourth Amendment challenge by disclaiming any objection to admission of the challenged evidence.
Whether excessive restraint during the commission of a homicide may sustain a corresponding conviction for first-degree kidnapping.
Whether the trial court properly granted the Alamance-Burlington Board of Education's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a minor's Corum claim for impairing her right to equal access to a sound basic education.
Whether the totality of the circumstances framework applies to determine if probable cause justified a warrantless search of a vehicle where law enforcement detected the odor of cannabis.
Whether the Court of Appeals properly granted defendant's motion for appropriate relief challenging his habitual felon indictment and the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of keeping or maintaining a vehicle for the purpose of keeping or selling controlled substances.
Whether Rule 19 compels joinder of a revocable trust to an equitable distribution proceeding where all settlors of the revocable trust are named parties to said proceeding.
Whether the defendant was entitled to an instruction under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2(b), commonly known as the castle doctrine.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by partially affirming the Superior Court's discovery order.
Whether rulings on questions of law in successive petitions to terminate sex offender registration are subject to issue preclusion.
Whether the defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was properly determined to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by allowing defendant's petition for writ of certiorari.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 250 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 June 2026
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 22 May 2026
Case Title / Description
Whether the provision plaintiff seeks to enforce is void for indefiniteness.
Review of recommendation for censure.
Whether the Business Court erred in denying defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by determining defense counsel conceded defendant's guilt to the offense of possession of a firearm by a felon without the defendant's consent.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining the State presented sufficient evidence to support two separate counts of assault by strangulation.
Whether the Business Court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of defendants, particularly where the effect of defendants' spoliation permeated throughout many of plaintiffs' claims.
Whether the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the trial court's order dismissing plaintiff's claims against defendant for aiding and abetting champerty and maintenance and slander of title.
Whether the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence from a Terry search and a warrantless search of defendant's automobile.
When the Governor commutes a defendant's death sentence to life imprisonment but no court has vacated, altered, or amended the judgment that includes a sentence of death, does initial appellate jurisdiction then rest with the Court of Appeals under N.C.G.S. 7A-27?
Whether defendant still has an appeal of right to this Court under N.C.G.S. 7A-27(a)(1) after the Governor commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment without parole.
Whether the trial court's admission of cell-phone text messages constituted plain error.
Whether the proposed class in this case satisfies the ascertainability requirement of class certification.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order concluding as a matter of law that respondent-father's consent was required for adoption to proceed.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding a defendant who pled guilty to habitual felon status had a right of appeal.
Whether the North Carolina Utilities Commission committed reversible error in approving general rate applications submitted by Duke Energy Progress, LLC and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC that included requests for performance-based regulation under N.C.G.S. 62-133.16.
Whether Currituck County could spend its occupancy tax revenues on public safety services.
Whether police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle.
Whether Rule 6(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the 60-day statutory time limitation to commence a contested case under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Whether the trial court prejudicially erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior felony convictions under Rule 404(b) where the defendant alleged self-defense.
Whether the North Carolina Utilities Commission committed reversible error in approving general rate applications submitted by Duke Energy Progress, LLC and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC that included requests for performance-based regulation under N.C.G.S. 62-133.16.
Mandate: 22 April 2026
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 2 April 2026
Case Title / Description
Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter its order dated 17 April 2023.
Mandate: 9 April 2026
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 20 March 2026
Case Title / Description
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' UDTPA claim based on a one-year contractual limitation period.
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the general prohibition on harsher resentencing in N.C.G.S. 15A-1335 did not apply to a case where the initial sentence had violated the mandatory sentencing framework.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by dismissing defendants' appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order denying defendants' motion to reconsider.
Whether the proposed class members in a class action against a county are ascertainable and whether the proposed class satisfies the predominance and superiority criteria.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order issuing a domestic violence protective order.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by certifying a class of home builders seeking a refund of certain Capital Facilities Fees.
Whether a trial court's permanency planning order included sufficient findings of fact to satisfy statutory criteria.
Whether the Business Court erred in denying parties' cross motions for judgment notwithstanding verdict on plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Wage and Hour Act.
Whether defendant's emails satisfy the statute of frauds as a note or memorandum of defendant's oral guaranty.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 168 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.