Supreme Court Slip Opinions
Signup For Email Notification
Court of Appeals Opinions
Headnote Index for 2024
Case Summaries/Headnotes
Mandate: 2 January 2025
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 13 December 2024
Case Title / Description
Whether plaintiff's service by publication in the county where defendant formerly lived and worked was insufficient under Rule 4(j1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whether a plaintiff clothing-store company's claim for insurance coverage was properly dismissed where it alleged COVID-19 related losses but the policy contained a viral contamination exclusion.
Whether the trial court's permanency-planning order complied with N.C.G.S. 7B-903, -906.1, and -906.2 of the Juvenile Code.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in addressing respondent's unpreserved constitutional challenge to removal of the child.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of Section 97-29(c) of the Workers' Compensation Act and in affirming the Industrial Commission's opinion and award denying plaintiff extended compensation benefits under that provision.
Whether N.C.G.S. 116-311 provides statutory immunity to institutions of higher education for damages arising from COVID-19 pandemic.
Whether N.C.G.S. 105-135.45 is ambiguous regarding application of the term credit allowed when calculating tax credits available to manufacturers of cigarettes for exportation.
Whether defendant waived his statutory right to a court-ordered competency evaluation and hearing when he failed to raise the issue at trial.
Addressing the proper procedure for removal of a clerk of superior court under Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent municipality properly denied petitioner's applications for permits necessary to build a charter school.
Whether restaurant closures necessitated by government orders responding to the COVID-19 crisis amounted to a direct physical loss for the purposes of business income and commercial property insurance coverage.
Whether defendant was properly sentenced to death on two counts of first-degree murder.
Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding (1) defendants' use of a reasonable planning period not to exceed 20 years when assessing impact fees and (2) whether a 2016 reduction in impact fees was due to reasons other than an updated school impact fee study.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 152 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: 7 November 2024
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 18 October 2024
Case Title / Description
Whether plaintiff's statement regarding grounds for appellate review adequately apprised the Court of Appeals as to how the trial court's order affected a substantial right.
Whether plaintiffs' constitutional claims challenging the Certificate of Need law are facial or as-applied challenges and whether the claims are subject to exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Whether a trial judge's finding of aggravating factors in violation of N.C.G.S. 20-179(a1)(2) may be reviewed for harmless error.
Whether exigent circumstances existed to provide an exception to the warrant requirement for a warrantless blood draw.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs' claim with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
Whether the trial court's alleged failure to adhere to N.C.G.S. 7B-1105's timing mandates prejudiced respondent father such that his appeal was preserved notwithstanding his failure to object at the trial court and whether subsequently filing an amended petition to terminate parental rights and serving respondent father with summons rendered any alleged noncompliance with N.C.G.S. 7B-1105 irrelevant.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 161 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 September 2024
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 23 August 2024
Case Title / Description
Whether defendants' counterclaim alleged colorable constitutional claims under the Fruits of Their Labor Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the North Carolina Constitution sufficient to overcome the State's claim of sovereign immunity.
Whether Nationwide effectively cancelled plaintiffs' fire insurance policy in line with N.C.G.S. 58-44-16(f)(10).
Whether Chapter 17 of the General Statutes requires summary denial of an application to prosecute the writ of habeas corpus when the applicant is detained by virtue of a final judgment of a competent court of criminal jurisdiction.
Summary judgment was proper in an eminent domain action when the trial court resolves all pleaded issues associated with property rights taken as of the date of the taking.
Defendant was properly indicted for multiple counts of human trafficking per victim. Further, although the trial court erred by failing to consider the substantial similarity of defendant's offenses pursuant to N.C.G.S. 15A-1340-14(e), the error did not prejudice defendant.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon and in granting the defendant a new trial on the charge of first-degree murder.
Whether this Court can review issues raised in a Court of Appeals dissent that were not raised or argued by the parties.
Whether a developer was entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims of a homeowner who suffered injury when she fell through her ceiling after stepping backwards in her attic without looking.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the trial court's adjudications of neglect and dependency and remanding for dismissal of the juvenile petitions.
Whether an interpretive rule in Orange County's zoning ordinances resolves any potential ambiguity between the applicable ordinance's text and a corresponding table.
Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that defendant did not have the right to use excessive force under the castle doctrine.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 179 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: 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 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.
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.
Dismissal of an appeal from an interlocutory order from the North Carolina Business Court.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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 the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for appropriate relief.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by certifying a class.
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 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 by not placing the burden on the defendant to prove he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a house.
Whether historical preservation group's complaint against the City of Asheville was sufficient to survive dismissal.
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 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 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 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 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 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.