Supreme Court Opinions
Signup For Email Notification
Court of Appeals Opinions
Headnote Index for 2023
Case Summaries/Headnotes
Mandate: 21 September 2023
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 1 September 2023
Case Title / Description
Whether defendant's capital trial and sentence of death were free of error or prejudicial error as regards defendant's motions for the trial judge to recuse himself or be disqualified and various evidentiary and jury selection issues.
Evidence taken in the light most favorable to the State was sufficient to support the trial court's decision to instruct the jury on the aggressor doctrine even in circumstances involving the defense of habitation.
Whether, under Delaware law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applies to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. Whether the trial court erred in its holding regarding defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding breach of contract, misrepresentations within a letter of intent, misrepresentations regarding contract amendment, and the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Whether the trial court erred in its holdings on 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss regarding claims of fraud by omission, promissory fraud, fraud, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a party's request for leave to file a second amended complaint. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in a discovery order ruling under Business Court Rule 10.9. Whether claims alleging negligent misrepresentation must rise to the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on the trial court's decision to exclude evidence found on the victim's cell phone.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence proffered by the defense which defendants asserted would tend to exculpate them in connection to the crimes for which defendants were being tried.
Whether the Administrative Law Judge properly affirmed the issuance of a permit, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 150B-34(a) (2021).
Whether defendant presented a prima facie case of selective enforcement.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 235 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 July 2023
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 16 June 2023
Case Title / Description
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing and remanding the opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission approving plaintiff's workers' compensation claim.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by vacating defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon because the indictment was fatally defective.
Whether the State's petition alleging juvenile delinquency for the criminal offense of sexual battery contained facts sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by determining that defendant held attorney-client privilege under the litigation engagement letter.
Whether there was competent evidence upon which the trial court could conclude that defendant had committed additional criminal offenses in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation.
Whether fentanyl qualifies as an opiate under the statute in effect at the time of the offense is a legal question of statutory interpretation.
Whether this appeal concerning personal jurisdiction should be remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by issuing a writ of certiorari and whether, under Rule 16 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court of Appeals dissent sufficiently set out the basis for the dissent.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-27(a)(2) from an order and opinion denying motions under Rule 59 for a new trial and Rule 50(b) for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following a jury trial.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by overturning the trial court's decision to remove reunification from the juveniles' permanent plan.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 169 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 May 2023
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 28 April 2023
Case Title / Description
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by determining that the trial court made sufficient findings of fact to support termination of parental rights.
Whether S.B. 824, a law implementing the peoples' choice to amend the North Carolina Constitution by requiring in-person voters to present photographic identification, violates Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution.
Whether the trial court erred by declining to conduct further inquiry into defendant's capacity to proceed following an apparent suicide attempt.
Whether the trial court erred in holding that N.C.G.S. 13-1, the statute providing for the restoration of voting rights to eligible felons, violates the Equal Protection Clause, the Property Qualifications Clause, and the Free Elections Clause of the North Carolina Constitution.
Whether an easement granting Duke Energy an interest in Lake Norman vested Duke Energy with the right to permit third-party homeowners to build structures over and into the submerged easement property and use the waters for recreational purposes.
On petition for rehearing, whether the three-judge panel properly applied this Court's standards from Harper I in assessing the General Assembly's remedial redistricting plans and, more fundamentally, whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that a settlement agreement was ambiguous and by reversing the trial court's summary judgment order.
Clarifying that the standard of review for an appellate court at the adjudicatory stage of a termination of parental rights proceeding is to determine whether there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings of fact, and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law.
Termination of parental rights; whether the Court of Appeals erred by vacating and remanding for a new termination hearing when the trial court had dismissed provisional counsel in accordance with N.C.G.S. 7B-1108.1(a)(1) and N.C.G.S. 7B-1101.1(a)(1).
Mandate: 26 April 2023
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 6 April 2023
Case Title / Description
Whether the trial court's order on remand finding no Batson violation was clear error.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by determining that the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusion of law adjudicating a minor a neglected juvenile.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that plaintiff-appellant stated a cognizable claim under Article I, Section 1 of the North Carolina Constitution but failed to state a cognizable claim under Article I, Section 19.
Whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law suffice to support the trial court's order of attorneys' fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. 6-21.5 (2021).
Whether the Due Process Clause permits the trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state corporate and individual defendants based on business-related activities that the defendants conducted in North Carolina.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by vacating the trial court's adjudications orders and remanding with instructions to grant specific visitation criteria.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that a jury's guilty verdict was ambiguous and whether N.C.G.S. ss 14-17(b)(1) requires a criminal defendant to be sentenced for a Class B2 felony when there is evidence introduced at trial that the defendant engaged in an inherently dangerous act or omission, done in such a reckless and wanton manner as to manifest a mind utterly without regard for human life and social duty and deliberately bent on mischief.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was no error in the trial court's order finding that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 98 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.