Supreme Court Opinions
|
Filed: 14 June 2019 Mandate: 5 July 2019 Zip File of Published Opinions Case Title / Description | |
| Sykes v. Health Network Sols., Inc., (251PA18 - Published)
Appeal from orders and opinions of N.C. Business Court dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for antitrust and related violations because of plaintiffs' failure to properly plead that defendants have market power within the relevant market. | |
| Sykes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.C., (248A18 - Published)
Appeal from order and opinion of N.C. Business Court dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for antitrust and related violations because of plaintiffs' failure to properly plead that defendants have market power within the relevant market. | |
| Town of Nags Head v. Richardson, (244A18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Dispute between a municipality and property owners over the Town's taking of a temporary easement in privately owned oceanfront property for a beach nourishment project; amount of compensation due the property owners; expert testimony on value of the interest taken; whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's determination of the amount to be awarded the property owners. | |
| State v. Alvarez, (299A18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to survive defendant's motions to dismiss a charge of maintaining a vehicle for the purpose of keeping or selling a controlled substance. | |
| State v. Harvey, (290A18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Appeal from conviction for second-degree murder; whether the evidence, although conflicting, was sufficient to satisfy defendant's burden to submit the issue of self-defense to the jury; whether the trial court erred in not submitting the instruction. | |
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. | |
|
Filed: 10 May 2019 Mandate: 30 May 2019 Zip File of Published Opinions Case Title / Description | |
| In re E.D., (125PA18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals vacating an order authorizing respondent's continued involuntary commitment for failure to comply with N.C.G.S. 122C-266; whether the issue on appeal was automatically preserved and if so, whether respondent was required to show prejudice before the order could be vacated. | |
| State v. Bursell, (124A18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Whether defendant preserved his constitutional challenge based on Grady v. North Carolina to the imposition of lifetime satellite-based monitoring after he pleaded guilty to statutory rape and indecent liberties; whether the Court of Appeals erred in invoking Appellate Rule 2 to consider defendant's argument on appeal if this issue was not properly preserved. | |
| State v. Mills, (526A13-2 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Appeal from Court of Appeals decision reversing lower court's denial of defendant's motion for appropriate relief following his conviction for sexual offenses against a minor; whether the court erred in admitting testimony at trial under Evidence Rule 404(b) regarding defendant's alleged prior sexual misconduct; whether defendant's appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to argue plain error in admission of that evidence, thus causing the COA to dismiss defendant's direct appeal from his convictions. | |
| State v. Daniel, (164A18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Appeal from trial court's order allowing defendant's motion to suppress evidence found after a traffic stop; whether the trooper who detained defendant for speeding and then arrested him for DWI had probable cause to arrest defendant for DWI. | |
| Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. USA v. Link, (300A18 - Published)
Appeal from order and opinion of N.C. Business Court granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contractual relations, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. | |
| In re Smith, (419A18 - Published)
Review of recommendation for public reprimand | |
| State v. White, (396PA17 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Appeal from conviction for child sex offense; whether the superseding short-form indictment charging defendant was facially defective because it did not refer to the alleged victim by name. | |
| State v. Mumma, (90PA18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Appeal from conviction for second-degree murder; whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by sending numerous pictures of the decedent's body into the jury room; plain error review of the trial court's jury instructions concerning the aggressor doctrine in relation to defendant's claim of self-defense. | |
| Piazza v. Kirkbride, (181A16 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Civil liability of director of bankrupt company under N.C.G.S. 78A-56(a)(2); whether the Director Safe Harbor provision of N.C.G.S. 55-8-30 provides a defense; whether the director found liable should receive a new trial because the trial court entered judgment on inconsistent jury verdicts. | |
| State v. Lofton, (143PA18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Whether an indictment charging defendant with manufacturing marijuana in violation of N.C.G.S. 90-95(a)(1) was fatally defective because it did not allege an 'intent to distribute.' | |
| State v. J.C., (405PA17 - Published)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the State's appeal from a trial court's order expunging records of petitioner-defendant's conviction for one count of indecent liberties. | |
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 182 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. | |
|
Filed: 29 March 2019 Mandate: 18 April 2019 Zip File of Published Opinions Case Title / Description | |
| State v. Phachoumphone, (65PA18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to survive defendant's motions to dismiss the charges for which he was convicted; whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in allowing the alleged child victim to testify remotely or in not intervening ex mero motu in certain closing arguments by the prosecutor. | |
| Preiss v. Wine & Design Franchise, LLC, (390A18 - Published)
Appeal from order of N.C. Business Court sanctioning counsel under Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d). | |
| County of Durham ex rel. Wilson v. Burnette, (404A18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Show cause hearing on whether to hold defendant in civil contempt for willful failure to pay current and past child support obligations; whether the district court's findings of fact supported its conclusion that defendant should be held in contempt; whether the findings were sufficient to show that defendant had the present ability to financially satisfy the conditions required to purge the contempt. | |
| State v. Tart, (427PA17 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Appeal from convictions for attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury; whether the short-form indictment charging attempted murder was fatally defective; whether the trial court erred in not intervening ex mero motu in the State's closing arguments. | |
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 182 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. | |
|
Filed: 1 February 2019 Mandate: 21 February 2019 Zip File of Published Opinions Case Title / Description | |
| Saunders v. ADP TotalSource Fi Xi, Inc., (399PA16 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Workers' Compensation; whether, when reviewing an appeal from an Industrial Commission decision that an attorney's fee was unreasonable, the superior court exceeded its authority under N.C.G.S. 97-90(c) and thus lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal. | |
| In re J.A.M., (7PA17-2 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals that, on remand from this Court, affirmed a trial court's adjudication of neglect of a minor child; whether clear and convincing evidence supported the findings of fact on which the order was based. | |
| Pachas v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., (144A18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Action seeking trial court's enforcement of its previous order requiring DHHS to use the federal poverty level for a family when determining petitioner's income eligibility for Medicaid benefits; whether the trial court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner did not exhaust her administrative remedies before taking the issue directly to court. | |
| State v. Thompson, (24A18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Appeal from convictions for violations of the Controlled Substances Act following defendant's guilty plea; whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress incriminating evidence recovered from the trunk of his car; whether defendant was 'seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. | |
| State v. Gentle, (240A18 - Published)
(View COA Opinion) Appeal by defendant from order imposing lifetime satellite-based monitoring on grounds that the trial court did not make a finding of 'reasonableness' before ordering SBM; whether the Court of Appeals erred by dismissing defendant's untimely appeal from the trial court's order, to which he did not object at trial. | |
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LISTED OPINIONS, THE COURT CONSIDERED 149 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. |