Supreme Court Slip Opinions
Signup For Email Notification
Court of Appeals Opinions
Headnote Index for 2025
Case Summaries/Headnotes
Mandate: 12 June 2025
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 23 May 2025
Case Title / Description
Review of recommendation for censure.
Whether defendant satisfied the prejudice prong for plain error where a law enforcement officer testifying as a lay witness gave his opinion regarding defendant's intent at the time of an accident.
Whether the Court of Appeals' majority erred in holding that the trial court did not commit structural error in denying defendant's court-appointed counsel's motion to withdraw for defendant to hire counsel of his own choosing.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the superior court's order in which it determined that petitioners are entitled to receive adoption assistance benefits several years after the adoption was finalized.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in vacating the trial court's adjudication order and remanding for additional factual findings about how respondent-mother's actions impaired or substantially risked impairing the welfare of her juvenile daughter.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that defendant must pay an employer-funded 5% contribution under N.C.G.S. 143-166.50(e).
Whether substitution of an alternate juror during guilt deliberations in a criminal trial violates a defendant's constitutional right to a jury of twelve.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by determining the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury once on first-degree forcible sexual offense where the defendant was indicted for two counts of first-degree forcible sexual offense.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing dismissal of a claim for negligence at the 12(b)(6) stage based on contributory negligence and in affirming dismissal of a claim for punitive damages.
Whether public official immunity applies to a medical director at a state university and whether summary judgment was proper.
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: 10 April 2025
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 21 March 2025
Case Title / Description
Whether the Court of Appeals conducted an appropriate review of the sentencing court's conclusion that defendant's sentence was constitutionally sufficient under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).
Whether the Business Court erred in ruling that the parties' intrafamilial dispute fell outside the scope of their arbitration agreement with Charles Schwab.
Whether unacceptable personal conduct provided just cause for termination of a state employee.
Whether the federal PREP Act preempts all state law claims, including those brought under the state constitution.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the trial court did not err in (1) denying defendant's motion to dismiss the charge under N.C.G.S. 90-95(h)(4) and (2) instructing the jury that opioids were included in the definition of 'opium or opiate' under N.C.G.S. 90-95(h)(4).
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's decision to classify a tract of land as defendant's separate property.
Whether the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of the State's expert witness.
Whether defendants adequately preserved arguments in their post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict where those arguments were not specifically articulated in their corresponding motion for directed verdict.
Whether the trial court complied with N.C.G.S. 15A-1242 where it informed a defendant of a miscalculated the maximum sentence.
Whether the trial court complied with N.C.G.S. 15A-1242 where it informed a defendant who sought to proceed pro se only of the harshest sentences he faced and miscalculated the maximum sentence by two years, but both the potential sentence and the actual sentence amounted to life in prison.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of the University's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of contract claims.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a land developer was not entitled to the benefit of permit choice based on its determination of application completeness and the existence of a now-expired moratorium.
Whether the sentencing court's findings of the mitigating factors under N.C.G.S. 15A-1340.19B support defendant's juvenile sentence to life without parole, and whether defendant's claims under J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) are procedurally barred under N.C.G.S. 15A-1419(a)(3).
Whether defendant's J.E.B. claim is preserved and whether the claim was procedurally barred.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 275 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: 20 February 2025
Zip File of Published Opinions
Headnote Index: 31 January 2025
Case Title / Description
Whether the Court of Appeals failed to consider defendant's state constitutional challenge to his sentences of life imprisonment without parole and whether the resentencing order complied with state constitutional requirements.
Whether the Business Court erred in ordering an entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on plaintiffs' complaint seeking judicial dissolution of the manager-managed LLCs, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 57D-6-02(2)(i), because continued operation of the LLCs in conformance with the operating agreements was 'not practicable.'
Whether the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules barred admission of cell phone records at trial.
Whether section 4.2(b) of the SAFE Child Act's revival of claims 'for child sexual abuse otherwise time-barred' by a three-year statute of limitations encompasses claims against defendants who did not directly commit the alleged abuse.
Whether an act of the General Assembly that purports to set aside a final judgment of the judicial branch violates separation of powers principles in the North Carolina Constitution.
Whether an act of the General Assembly that purports to set aside a final judgment of the judicial branch violates separation of powers principles in the North Carolina Constitution.
Whether the SAFE Child Act's revival of previously time-barred civil claims was facially unconstitutional.