Supreme Court Opinions
Signup For Email Notification
Court of Appeals Opinions
Headnote Index for 2022
Case Summaries/Headnotes
Mandate: 7 July 2022
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 17 June 2022
Case Title / Description
Petition for writ of certiorari; whether the Court of Appeals is constrained by N.C. R. App. P. 21 in exercising its discretion to allow or deny the writ.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting provisions of N.C.G.S. 22B-20 and affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment on that basis.
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)
Whether the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order affirming the Treasurer's declaratory ruling, which concluded that N.C.G.S. 116B-78(d) prohibits property finders from depositing checks into trust accounts for their clients.
Whether the decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commission to authorize the amortization of the costs of remediating coal ash waste to rates over a ten-year period while denying the Company the ability to earn a return on the unamortized balance of those costs was arbitrary and capricious.
Whether a contract in which a buyer offers to purchase real property constitutes an evidence of indebtedness for purposes of N.C.G.S. 6-21.2 so as to entitle the prevailing party in an action to recover an earnest money deposit to an award of reasonable attorney's fees.
Appeal from an order terminating parental rights for neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); whether the record supports the trial court's findings of fact; whether the trial court's findings of fact support its determination that the juvenile had been neglected in the past and that the likelihood of repetition of future neglect was high.
Standing to file a private termination of parental rights petition; abandonment as a ground to support termination; disposition.
Whether imposition of two consecutive sentences which together make a juvenile defendant eligible for parole after forty-five years in prison constituted de facto life without parole in violation of the state or federal constitutions as applied to a juvenile offender found guilty of first-degree murder and first-degree rape and who the trial court determined was neither incorrigible nor irredeemable.
Termination of parental rights; collateral attack of an initial custody determination prohibited on appeal of an order terminating parental rights; motion to terminate parental rights must provide sufficient notice of the alleged grounds; insufficient evidence and findings of fact to support termination of respondent-father's parental rights.
Whether the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the trial court's partial denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the claims against him in his individual capacity, finding genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether defendant acted with malice when arresting plaintiff, thereby overcoming the presumption of public official immunity that would otherwise bar such claims against defendant.
Whether imposition of two consecutive sentences of life with parole constituted de facto life without parole in violation of the state or federal constitutions as applied to juvenile offender found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder who trial court determined to be not incorrigible.
Termination of parental rights; jurisdiction; denial of motion to continue; adjudication of neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and rejecting defendant's requested jury instruction.
Personal jurisdiction; whether a nonresident defendant's contract has a substantial connection with North Carolina.
Termination of parental rights; whether termination order was properly entered pursuant to Rules 52 and 63 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
Appeal of an interlocutory order of a business court judge pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-27(a)(3).
Whether the trial court's findings of fact in its order denying defendant's motion to suppress were supported by competent evidence; whether the seizure and subsequent search of defendant was constitutional.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 116 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: 26 May 2022
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 6 May 2022
Case Title / Description
Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting certain testimony from an investigating police officer.
Termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); whether the evidence and findings supported the conclusion that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect.
Whether the trial court had a sufficient factual basis to enter judgment on multiple assault sentences from defendant's guilty plea.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying a de novo standard of review in reviewing findings of the Industrial Commission under the timely-filing requirement of N.C.G.S. 97-24 and reversing the Commission's dismissal of plaintiff's claim on that basis.
Whether the trial court considered matters outside the pleading and thus converted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-31 seeking review of the sufficiency of defendant's indictment.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no error in the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss and failure to instruct the jury on the statutory definition of 'registrant' pursuant to N.C.G.S. 90-87(25).
Whether the trial court's factual findings supported its legal conclusion that respondent-mother had acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected status as a parent by ceding custody of her minor children to their paternal grandmother and whether the trial court appropriately applied the 'best interests of the child' standard in awarding guardianship to the paternal grandmother.
Whether, under common law agency tenets, a principal in a joint real estate development venture is imputed with the knowledge of a co-principal's intent to defraud creditors by way of an insider conveyance of real estate property that is the subject of a lawsuit filed by the co-principal's creditor.
Appeal from order terminating respondent's parental rights; termination of respondent's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); neglect.
On a motion to dismiss for a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation, the State may not elicit privileged testimony from a criminal defendant's former attorney to justify the delay in the case. A criminal defendant can prove prejudice for purposes of his Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim under Barker v. Wingo by demonstrating actual or presumptive prejudice.
Whether the trial court violated respondent-father's constitutional rights when it denied his request for a continuance, preventing him from appearing at a hearing on a petition for termination of his parental rights because the federal prison where respondent-father was incarcerated was under lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Termination of parental rights; adjudication of ground for termination based on neglect under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1).
Termination of parental rights; adjudication of ground for termination of willful abandonment pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(7).
Whether the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress was insufficient to evaluate the constitutionality of the checking station.
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying respondent-mother's motion to continue the termination hearing.
Appeal from an order terminating respondent's parental rights; whether evidence supports the trial court's dispositional findings of fact; whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding it was in the child's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that respondent-father failed to preserve his constitutional argument.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 199 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 April 2022
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 18 March 2022
Case Title / Description
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred in adjudicating the existence of neglect as grounds for termination of respondent-mother's parental rights; no-merit appeal by respondent-father.
Termination of parental rights; service of a summons upon a nonresident respondent-parent.
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that termination of parental rights was in the juvenile's best interests.
Appeal from order terminating respondent's parental rights; whether the trial court erred by terminating respondent's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (5).
Termination of parental rights; whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact; whether the trial court properly concluded that respondent's parental rights were subject to termination under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2).
Termination of parental rights; standard of proof.
Whether the trial court's findings of fact, when supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, were sufficient to support the trial court's adjudication that grounds existed to terminate the parental rights of respondent.
Termination of parental rights; best interests determination; sufficiency of the evidence; abuse of discretion.
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred in adjudicating the existence of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the juvenile's removal under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2).
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred in adjudicating the existence of neglect, such that there was a probability that neglect would recur if the juvenile was returned to respondent-father's care, and willful failure to correct the conditions that led to the juvenile's removal under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2).
Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded termination was in the juvenile's best interests.
Whether the trial court erred by determining that there was a substantial likelihood of repetition of neglect if the juvenile was returned to respondent's care.
Termination of parental rights; adjudication of ground for termination based on neglect under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1).
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred by determining that there was a showing of past neglect and a probability of a repetition of neglect pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and whether the trial court erred by determining that termination was in the child's best interests.
Appeal from order terminating respondent-father's parental rights; whether the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests.
Mandate: 31 March 2022
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 11 March 2022
Case Title / Description
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint; whether plaintiff's constitutional argument was preserved for appeal; whether joinder of Legislature was necessary.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's order modifying plaintiff's child support obligation; whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's order denying plaintiff's posttrial motions.
Whether a condition imposed as a part of a defendant's probation or suspended sentence is reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation or violates the defendant's parental rights when the condition prohibits contact between the defendant and the victim of his crime, when the victim also happens to be the sole legal and physical custodian of the defendant's child.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury concerning the extent to which defendant was entitled to exercise the right of self-defense when he was assaulted in his own home.
Whether the statutory procedures for post-conviction DNA testing are available to convicted defendants who entered guilty pleas; whether defendant made a sufficient showing of materiality to obtain the entry of an order providing for post-conviction DNA testing.
Whether an indictment for attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon which alleges that a defendant attempted to rob a defined group of individuals at a specific location on a particular date was sufficient to place the defendant on notice of the crime he is alleged to have committed and to protect the defendant from double jeopardy.
Whether the Court of Appeals improperly reweighed facts in reversing the trial court's order granting the defendant a new trial.
State employee retirees' health insurance benefits were deferred compensation offered as part of an employment contract that can be modified by statute but cannot be substantially impaired. Plaintiffs' evidence failed to show that the plaintiff class as a whole suffered substantial impairment in their contractual rights.
Whether an individual's leaving work was attributable to his employer as required by N.C.G.S. 96-14.5 (2021) to avoid disqualification for unemployment benefits.
Declaratory judgment; tortious interference with contract; personal jurisdiction.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 126 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: 24 February 2022
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 14 February 2022
Case Title / Description
Whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution and whether the 2021 Enacted Maps violated various rights established in the North Carolina Constitution.
Mandate: 3 March 2022
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 11 February 2022
Case Title / Description
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court on the basis that plaintiffs' sweepstakes game violates N.C.G.S. 14-306.4.
Whether the trial court's admission of testimony that we assume arguendo violated defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause and Rule 404(b) was prejudicial.
Whether the trial court committed clear error in overruling defendant's Batson challenge.
Whether the trial court committed plain error in permitting expert testimony that the victim was 'sexually abused' in the absence of physical evidence or in permitting testimony identifying the defendant as the perpetrator. Whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record.
Termination of parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(5) (2019); no-merit review pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Whether plaintiff's amended complaint sufficed to allege a claim for relief pursuant to N.C.G.S. 147-76.1.
Whether the Industrial Commission's calculation of the plaintiff's average weekly wages pursuant to N.C.G.S. 97-2(5) and its determination concerning whether that calculation produces results that are fair and just to both parties involve an issue of law or an issue of fact.
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court properly concluded respondent's parental rights were subject to termination under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); whether the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded termination was in the child's best interests.
Whether the probation violation reports entered in defendant's case sufficiently pleaded that defendant had absconded supervision; whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking defendant's probation pursuant to a finding that defendant in fact absconded supervision.
Termination of parental rights; no-merit brief.
Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that defendant would not be entitled to self-defense if the jury found that he was a felon in possession of a firearm at the time of the killing.
Whether the trial court erred by denying a motion to continue the termination hearing; whether the trial court complied with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act; and whether the trial court erred by eliminating visitation in the permanency planning order.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing defendant's convictions for insufficient evidence.
Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred by determining that there was a likelihood of future neglect if the child was returned to respondent's care.
Review of Court of Appeals' decision addressing trial court's dismissal of a claim of neglect; de novo review.
Business investments are not 'in or affecting commerce' under the North Carolina Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 141 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.