Supreme Court Opinions
Signup For Email Notification
Court of Appeals Opinions
Headnote Index for 2020
Case Summaries/Headnotes
Mandate: 10 December 2020
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 20 November 2020
Case Title / Description
Appeal from an order terminating respondent-mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2), (3), and (6); whether the juvenile was left in foster care or placement outside the home for the requisite 12-month statutory time period under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2); whether the trial court made sufficient findings of fact to support its conclusion of law that grounds existed to terminate respondent's parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(3) and (6).
Termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (7) (2019). No-merit review pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Whether the trial court erred in determining that it was in the child's best interests to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights.
Appeal from an order terminating respondent's parental rights; termination of respondent's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); neglect.
Appeal from an order terminating respondent-mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6); whether the findings of fact support the conclusion of law that respondent-mother's parental rights should be terminated pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2).
Termination of parental rights on the ground of neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1).
Appeal from an order terminating parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2), (7) (2019); whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying respondent-father's motion to continue the termination hearing; whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; whether the trial court's findings of fact support its conclusions of law that grounds exist to terminate respondent-father's parental rights on the basis of willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal and willful abandonment.
Appeal from order terminating parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (7); whether the evidence and the trial court's findings support the trial court's adjudication of grounds for termination.
Termination of parental rights on the ground of neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1).
Termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) (2019); whether the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that terminating respondents' parental rights was in the best interests of the juveniles.
Termination of parental rights; personal jurisdiction; service of process by publication; lack of affidavit required by N.C. R. Civ. P. 4(j1).
Appeal from orders terminating parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2); no-merit review pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Denial of motion to continue; whether the trial court erred in determining grounds existed pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2); whether the trial court erred in determining that it was in one child's best interests to terminate the parents' parental rights.
Termination of parental rights on the ground of neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); Best interests of the child to terminate parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1110(a).
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court received sufficient evidence and made adequate findings of fact to support a termination of respondent-mother's parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2), (6)-(7).
Termination of parental rights; DSS standing to file termination petition; Jurisdiction to enter nonsecure custody orders; Best interests determination pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1110.
Appeal from order terminating parental rights; DSS standing; collateral attack on initial adjudication order; lack of UCCJEA findings.
Mandate: 15 October 2020
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 25 September 2020
Case Title / Description
Termination of parental rights; no-merit brief; pro se arguments; district court judge's recusal not required based solely on her entry of prior orders designating adoption as child's permanent plan.
Whether the evidence and findings of fact support the trial court's conclusion that respondent's parental rights were subject to termination based on willful abandonment.
Whether the trial court erred in ruling that defendant's motion for appropriate relief which sought relief under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) was voided by the retroactive application of the RJA repeal.
Whether (1) the trial court erred by failing to give defendant's proposed jury instructions on self-defense and transferred-intent; (2) defendant was prejudiced by such an error; and (3) the Court of Appeals was correct to remand the case for the entry of a judgment convicting defendant of second-degree murder.
Whether (1) the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict on pain and suffering damages; (2) the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the denial of defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ('JNOV') on administrative negligence under N.C.G.S. 90-21.11(2)(b); (3) defendant was entitled to a new trial because it was prejudiced by the alleged intertwining of plaintiff's medical negligence and administrative negligence during trial; and (4) the trial court erred by granting plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict on contributory negligence.
Whether the Business Court applied the correct standard of review to plaintiff's claims and whether the Business Court afforded proper deference to the Governor's emergency orders during the global pandemic.
Whether the repeal of the Racial Justice Act violated the North Carolina Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
Whether the repeal of the Racial Justice Act violated the North Carolina Constitution and Constitution of the United States.
Termination of parental rights; Best interests of the child pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1110.
Whether defendant's appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to cite to a line of cases that used a standard of review that is inapplicable in this case.
Whether a pro se defendant seeking postconviction DNA testing in a first-degree murder case has sufficiently met the burden of the showing required under N.C.G.S. 15A-269 to be appointed counsel to assist him in the effort to obtain such testing.
Termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), (6) (2019). No-merit review pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Whether grounds existed to terminate the father's parental rights where there was never an adjudication of the minor child as abused, neglected or dependent and whether the evidence supports a finding that the father willfully abandoned his child.
Whether defense counsel conceded defendant's guilt to a charged offense without his prior consent so as to constitute a per se violation of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.
Termination of parental rights; whether the respondent-mother's failure to contact the child during the six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition supports the trial court's adjudication of willful abandonment under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(7).
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 128 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: 3 September 2020
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 14 August 2020
Case Title / Description
Whether plaintiff's proffered expert qualifies under Rule 702(b) to offer standard of care testimony; whether the trial court erred in awarding summary judgment to defendant for lack of evidence of proximate cause.
Whether the Industrial Commission erred by ordering subrogation of UIM proceeds under N.C.G.S. 97-10.2 that plaintiff was awarded in a South Carolina wrongful death settlement.
Termination of parental rights; best interests; requirement of written findings under N.C.G.S. 7B-1110(a); existence of parental rights of second parent as a hindrance to permanent plan of adoption; availability of relative placement.
Whether an affidavit submitted by an out-of-state party under N.C.G.S. 52C-3-315(b) must be notarized, or whether it simply may be sworn to under penalty of perjury.
Whether defendant preserved all sufficiency of the evidence issues for appellate review when he identified only one element of the crime in his motion to dismiss at trial; whether defendant was properly deemed a teacher allowing him to be convicted of N.C.G.S. 14-27.7, criminalizing sexual activity with students.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by determining that plaintiff corporation's communications involving the purported agent of plaintiff's one-hundred percent shareholder are not privileged; whether the trial court abused its discretion by conducting a limited in camera review of documents to determine an issue of privilege.
Appeal from termination of respondent-father's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1), (6)-(7) (2019); whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding termination was in the best interests of the juveniles.
Special Order.
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred by failing to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Whether the repeal of the Racial Justice Act violated the North Carolina Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
Termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)?(3), (6)?(7) (2019); whether the trial court erred by eliminating reunification as a permanent plan.
Appeal from conviction for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and possession of a firearm by a felon; whether the evidence, although conflicting, was sufficient to satisfy defendant's burden to submit the issue of self-defense and the defense of habitation to the jury; whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on defendant's requested instructions.
Appeal from conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery with a dangerous weapon and felonious breaking or entering; whether the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant possessed the requisite felonious intent necessary to support his convictions.
Defamation; First Amendment; was the jury's finding of actual malice supported by sufficient evidence; did the trial court err by instructing the jury on the issue of falsity; did the trial court err by failing to instruct the jury that it must find one of the statutory aggravating factors under N.C.G.S. 1D-15 in order to award punitive damages.
Appeal from an order terminating respondent-father's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (7) (2019); whether the evidence supported the trial court-s findings of fact and whether the findings of fact supported its conclusion of law that respondent-father-s parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(7).
Whether the State may prove the existence of a defendant's prior felony convictions by a method of proof other than those expressly set out in the Habitual Felons Act.
Whether the Business Court properly dismissed a defendant's crossclaims following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against all defendants.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 172 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: 6 August 2020
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 17 July 2020
Case Title / Description
Whether the trial court's findings of fact support its conclusion that respondent's parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2) for willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from her care.
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court received sufficient evidence and made adequate findings of fact to support an adjudication of neglect under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1).
Appeal from an order terminating both respondents' parental rights; termination of respondent-father's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(9), parental rights with respect to another child had been terminated involuntarily and parent lacked the ability or willingness to establish a safe home; whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that termination of respondent-mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests.
Termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1), (6) (2019). No-merit review pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Appeal from an order terminating parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2); whether the trial court's findings supported its determination that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect; whether the trial court erred by finding termination to be in the best interests of the children.
Termination of parental rights; past neglect and a likelihood of future neglect; best interests of the child.
Termination of parental rights; denial of petition for failure to prove ground for termination under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a); sufficiency of findings of fact and conclusions of law under N.C.G.S. 7B-1109(e), -1110(c).
Termination of parental rights; no irreconcilable conflict between the trial court's finding that respondent willfully failed to make reasonable progress under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2) and finding that she was unable to provide proper care and supervision under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(6); sufficiency of dispositional findings under N.C.G.S. 7B-1110(a); lack of adoptive placement is not a bar to terminating parental rights.
Termination of parental rights; personal jurisdiction; consent by general appearance; service of summons.
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that terminating respondents' parental rights was in the best interests of the juveniles.
Termination of parental rights; best interest determination pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1110; trial court's authority to hear new evidence on remand.
Appeal from an order terminating respondents' parental rights; whether the evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings of fact supported its conclusion of law that respondent-father's parental rights should be terminated pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); no-merit review of respondent-mother's appeal pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(e).
Termination of parental rights; insufficient showing of likelihood of repetition of neglect; dependency.
Mandate: 25 June 2020
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 5 June 2020
Case Title / Description
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that termination was in a child's best interest.
Whether the superior court properly tried defendant under a statement of charges that was filed after arraignment but did not change the nature of the charges against defendant as they were described in the arrest warrant.
Whether defendant had a duty to warn plaintiff about a step outside of defendant's building that was significantly different in height and appearance than the other steps; whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent when he tripped on defendant's steps.
Termination of parental rights; trial court's best interests determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion; written findings are not required for dispositional factors in N.C.G.S. 7B-1110(a) absent conflicting evidence.
Termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) (2019). No-merit review pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals holding that the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on entrapment.
Termination of parental rights; Subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act.
Termination of parental rights; willful abandonment; no attempt by parent to contact the child; motion to continue; denial of second continuance for witness who fails to appear at hearing; no abuse of discretion.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a prevailing party in a disciplinary proceeding by a licensing board cannot recover attorney's fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. 6-19.1.
Termination of parental rights; whether due process requires that a nonresident parent have minimum contacts with the State in order to establish personal jurisdiction over him or her for purposes of termination of parental rights proceedings.
Termination of parental rights; Best interest determination pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1110.
Whether state judicial officials have the authority and jurisdiction to rule on the legality of immigration arrest warrants and detainers issued by the federal government requesting local law enforcement agencies to detain individuals suspected of violating federal immigration laws for at least 48 hours after their state criminal matters have been resolved.
Whether defendant presented an adequate record of the race of challenged prospective jurors to permit appellate review of defendant's Batson claim; Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals erred by concluding that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination pursuant to Batson.
Appeal from judgments entered upon convictions resulting from guilty plea to charges of second-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon; whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea after concluding that defendant had not established a fair and just reason for withdrawal of his plea.
Appeal from an order terminating respondent's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); neglect.
Appeal from a child custody dispute between two parents; whether the trial court erred by denying defendant visitation with her children without first making a finding under N.C.G.S. 7B-1109(f) based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that defendant was an unfit parent or acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected status as a natural parent; whether the trial court erred in delegating to plaintiff the discretion to allow visitation between defendant and the children.
Class Action; Mootness; Whether a pick off exception to the mootness doctrine applies in the context of a class action lawsuit.
RJA cases.
RJA cases.
Whether a defendant can be simultaneously punished for both habitual misdemeanor assault and assault inflicting serious bodily injury arising from the same act.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 120 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: 21 May 2020
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 1 May 2020
Case Title / Description
Whether there was reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in disorderly conduct to justify a stop when defendant 'flipped the bird' from the passenger seat of a moving vehicle.
Termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(7); Compliance with court order requiring parent to have no contact with children, without more, does not preclude a finding of willful abandonment.
Appeal from order and final judgment holding that information obtained as a result of a public records request for information on students found responsible for serious sexual misconduct was considered educational records as defined by FERPA and therefore protected from disclosure; whether the trial court erred in determining that FERPA granted UNC-CH discretion to release the name of any student found responsible by the university for serious sexual misconduct and preempts the Public Records Act.
Appeal from conviction for conspiracy to commit harassment of a juror in violation of N.C.G.S. 14-225.2(a)(2). Whether the trial court erred in concluding that there was sufficient evidence of an agreement among two or more persons to threaten or intimidate a juror.
Appeal from convictions for first-degree murder, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery; whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case that the State was motivated by race in its use of peremptory challenges during jury selection.
Appeal from judgment of eviction; whether the landlord waived breach of lease by accepting rent payments after notice of lease nonrenewal; whether tenant was properly evicted for nonpayment of rent.
In an inverse condemnation proceeding for a Map Act taking, did the trial court's jury instructions and evidentiary rulings erroneously characterize the nature of the taking in a way that prejudiced the Department of Transportation, was the trial court's decision to reject a quick take counterclaim on the eve of trial an abuse of discretion, and did the trial court properly take account of property taxes and correctly calculate pre-judgment interest.
Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals holding that the issuance of a warrant to search the residence of suspected drug dealers was supported by probable cause.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 134 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: 23 April 2020
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 3 April 2020
Case Title / Description
Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled defendant's objections during the prosecutor's closing argument.
Whether (1) defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the State's evidence were preserved; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant aided and abetted; and (3) the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant obtained a 'thing of value' as defined under N.C.G.S. 14-100.
Whether there is an irreconcilable conflict between N.C.G.S. 160A-360(e) and N.C.G.S. 160A-360(f), as amended by Session Law 1999-35, that invalidates the applicability of subsection (e).
Appeal from an order terminating parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2); whether the trial court issued sufficient findings of fact regarding progress leading up to the termination hearing to support its ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law that grounds existed to terminate parental rights; whether the trial court abused its discretion in terminating parental rights.
Appeal from an order terminating respondent's parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(7); willful abandonment.
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred by concluding respondent willfully abandoned his child where respondent attended visitations with the child after the petition was filed; whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the child's best interest.
Whether a contract's liquidated damages provision created a genuine issue of material fact, thereby precluding summary judgment for plaintiff and whether the contract with plaintiff was in violation of defendant's charter and the statutes governing its operation and is therefore null and void.
Whether the Business Court erred in denying the tax refund claim as procedurally defective because the taxpayer changed the basis of its refund.
Whether the General Assembly intended to exempt by implication the Teachers' and State Employees' Retirement System's Board of Trustees from rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.C.G.S. 150B, in adopting a Contribution-Based Benefit Cap pursuant to N.C.G.S. 135- 5(a3).
Appeal from an order terminating parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2); whether the trial court's adjudicatory findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence; and whether those findings were sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion of law that grounds existed to terminate respondent's parental rights on the basis of neglect based upon a prior adjudication of neglect and a likelihood of repetition of neglect.
Whether payments made pursuant to an agreement between the Attorney General's Office and major hog producers constitute 'penalties' subject to article IX, section 7 of the North Carolina Constitution.
Whether the General Assembly intended to exempt by implication the Teachers' and State Employees' Retirement System's Board of Trustees from rulemaking requirements pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, N.C.G.S. 150B, in adopting a Contribution-Based Benefit Cap pursuant to N.C.G.S. 135-5(a3).
Conditional Use Permits; Whether the City of Asheville properly denied a developer's application for a conditional use permit to build a hotel in downtown Asheville; Whether a local government may independently assess an application for a conditional use permit and make findings of fact that support denying that permit when no one offers evidence in opposition to that permit or, alternatively, whether a developer is automatically entitled to the issuance of a conditional use permit when no one presents evidence in opposition to the permit.
Appeal from an order terminating respondent's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); neglect.
Appointment of a guardian ad litem pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1108; whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the best interests of the child.
Medical malpractice 9(j) certification; medical expert willing to testify; facially valid 9(j) certificate
Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals holding that defendant could only be convicted of a single count of possession of a firearm on educational property, despite his simultaneous possession of five firearms.
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: 19 March 2020
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 28 February 2020
Case Title / Description
Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error when it failed to instruct the jury on the defense of justification for the charge of felon in possession of a firearm.
Whether (1) the trial court erred by not defining 'sexual act' in the context of an offense under N.C.G.S. 14-318.4(a2)--setting out the crime for felony child abuse by sexual act--according to the definition set out in N.C.G.S. 14-27.1(4) (recodified as N.C.G.S. 14-27.20(4)); and (2) such error amounted to plain error.
Subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act; termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(3); lack of knowledge not a defense for willful failure to pay reasonable portion of the children's cost of care.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the element of the felony indecent exposure statute requiring that the exposure be 'in the presence of' another requires that the victim could have seen the exposure had he or she looked; whether the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that defendant's exposure was 'in the presence of' the child.
Whether the trial court's imposition of a sentence of life with the possibility of parole entered pursuant to N.C.G.S. 15A-1340.19B(a)(1) upon defendant's conviction of first-degree murder violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States or North Carolina constitutions.
Action to enforce a separation agreement and property settlement; whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's order of specific performance requiring defendant to pay arrearages on and prospective alimony of $3,750.00 per month.
Appeal from an order and opinion of the Business Court determining that dividend income from a wholly owned subsidiary is considered part of a company's 'income not taxable' for the purposes of calculating 'net economic loss' income tax deductions.
Appeal from an order and opinion of the Business Court allowing in part defendant's cross motion for summary judgment; whether the Business Court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant on the issue of whether plaintiff could recover damages given the payment terms of a contract between the parties.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-27(a)(3) from an order and opinion on defendants' motion to stay all proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds; whether the Business Court erred by granting a stay in favor of defendants where plaintiff's claims under North Carolina and English law challenge the North Carolina-based conduct of the North Carolina-based officials most responsible for the failure of a global clinical drug; and whether the Business Court erred by staying the case without affording plaintiff limited jurisdictional discovery to clarify the contested ties between the claims asserted and the potential forums.
Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence after determining that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle based on an anonymous tip.
Whether plaintiffs retained a right of first refusal contained in an original lease during a holdover year-to-year tenancy created by operation of law; whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants.
Whether the General Assembly authorized Oak Island to impose sewer district fees on owners of undeveloped parcels of property.
Review of recommendation for censure.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the trial court did not have the authority to consider plaintiff's motions to amend its complaint to reduce its just compensation deposit after defendant attempted to voluntarily dismiss its claim for additional compensation.
Appeal from an order and opinion of the Business Court concluding that insurers can depreciate labor costs when calculating actual cash value.
Termination of parental rights: whether the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear and convincing evidence and supported its conclusions of law that respondent-mother's parental rights should be terminated pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1).
Whether the trial court erred in applying the lex loci test, rather than the most significant relationship test, in determining whether summary judgment should have been granted with respect to plaintiffs' misappropriation of trade secrets claim; whether the trial court erred in ruling on motions for summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony.
Administrative Law; North Carolina Human Resources Act; Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its decision to vacate petitioner's award of back pay and attorneys' fees.
Possession of weapon of mass death and destruction; Motion to Dismiss; Whether a flash bang grenade constitutes a weapon of mass death and destruction pursuant to N.C.G.S. 14-288.8(c)(1); Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to withstand a motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction.
Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals that, on remand from this Court, reversed a trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop; whether the law enforcement officer unreasonably extended the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in violation of the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in Rodriguez v. United States.
Termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(3); ability to pay reasonable portion of the children's cost of care.
Appeal from convictions for failure to exhibit or surrender a driver's license and resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer; whether the Court of Appeals majority erred in holding that defendant did not forfeit his right to counsel and therefore must receive a new trial.
Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals holding that defendant did not qualify as an 'Indian' within the definition of the Indian Major Crimes Act.
Appeal from Business Court orders denying plaintiffs' motion for entry of default judgment; whether defendant's contacts with North Carolina were sufficient to support a determination that personal jurisdiction existed.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 249 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: 13 February 2020
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 24 January 2020
Case Title / Description
Termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2); whether findings of fact support conclusions of law on adjudication.
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the availability of a potential relative placement at disposition.
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred in the disposition phase by finding that each of respondent-mother's children had a high probability of adoption.
Appeal from an order terminating parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); whether the trial court's findings of facts are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; whether the trial court's findings of fact support its conclusion of law that grounds exist to terminate parental rights on the basis of neglect.