Scope of Supreme Court's review—based on Court of Appeals dissent—issues specifically set out in dissent—Where plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court based on a dissent in the Court of Appeals (COA) and did not petition for discretionary review of any additional issues, the Supreme Court considered the merits of only the issue specifically set out and explained by the dissenting COA judge. The dissenting COA judge's single sentence vaguely and impliedly disagreeing with another of the majority's holdings–without providing any reasoning–was not sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over that issue. Cryan v. Nat'l Council of YMCAs of the U.S. , 384 N.C. 569 (2023) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Writ of certiorari—two-factor test—merit of issue—extraordinary circumstances—The Court of Appeals acted within its sound discretion when it issued a writ of certiorari to review the trial court's interlocutory order concluding that defendants had asserted a facial challenge to the SAFE Child Act and transferring the issue to a three-judge panel. The Court of Appeals properly applied the two-factor test for determining whether to issue a writ of certiorari, determining first that defendant's argument had merit and second that extraordinary circumstances existed to justify issuance of the writ–specifically, that review would advance the interest of judicial economy, that the appeal raised a recurring issue concerning a relatively new statutory scheme, and that the issue involved the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Cryan v. Nat'l Council of YMCAs of the U.S. , 384 N.C. 569 (2023) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Attorney-client privilege—multiparty attorney-client relationship—joint representation of co-defendants—complex business case—In a complex business case, where defendants (a company and its individual members) were jointly represented by the same law firm–which also represented the company in "general corporate matters" under a standard corporate engagement letter–in a dispute with plaintiffs (the trust of the estate of the company's majority owner), when the relationship between the individual defendants deteriorated and one individual defendant (Hurysh) brought crossclaims against the others, the trial court properly concluded that Hurysh could waive the attorney-client privilege and disclose a recording that he secretly had made of a conference call between defendants and counsel before the falling out among defendants. Competent evidence supported the court's finding that the attorney's advice was given not as corporate counsel but as joint defense counsel for defendants pursuant to an express engagement letter (not the standard corporate engagement letter), which provided that, in the event of a disagreement among the defendants, the attorney-client privilege would not protect the information shared by any defendant with the law firm. Therefore, the trial court's determination that Hurysh held the attorney-client privilege and could waive it was well within the court's sound discretion. Howard v. IOMAXIS, LLC , 384 N.C. 576 (2023) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Permanency planning—ceasing reunification efforts—constitutionally protected status as parents—issue not preserved for appellate review—In an abuse and neglect matter, in which two children were removed from the home due to unexplained life-threatening injuries that the younger child experienced when she was six weeks old, and where the trial court removed reunification with the parents from the permanent plan on grounds that the parents–who were found to be the only ones who could have caused their child's injuries–neither accepted blame for the abuse nor provided plausible explanations for the injuries, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision holding that the trial court erred by preconditioning reunification on an admission of fault by the parents without first finding that the parents were unfit or had acted inconsistently with their constitutionally protected status as parents. Neither parent had raised the constitutional issue before the trial court, and therefore it had not been preserved for appellate review. In re J.M. , 384 N.C. 584 (2023) (Author: Justice Trey Allen)

Permanency planning—removal of reunification from permanent plan—sufficiency of findings—In an abuse and neglect matter, in which two children were removed from the home due to unexplained life-threatening injuries that the younger child suffered when she was six weeks old, the trial court did not err in the dispositional phase by removing reunification with the parents from the permanent plan where the court had properly determined that further reunification efforts would be clearly unsuccessful and inconsistent with the children's health or safety. Although both parents had made significant progress on their family case plans, competent evidence supported the court's findings of fact–which were binding on appeal, since the parents did not appeal the adjudication order containing them–establishing that: the younger child's injuries resulted from abuse; the parents were the only caregivers who could have abused the child; and neither parent accepted responsibility for the abuse, offered a plausible explanation for the child's injuries, or expressed any reservations about leaving the children alone with the other parent. In re J.M. , 384 N.C. 584 (2023) (Author: Justice Trey Allen)

Possession of a firearm by a felon—charged with other offenses—single indictment—sufficiency of notice—Defendant's indictment for possession of a firearm by a felon, which also charged defendant with two related offenses, was not fatally defective for violating N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1(c) (which requires a separate indictment for possession of a firearm by a felon) and did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction over that offense because the facts alleged in the indictment were sufficient to put defendant on notice regarding the essential elements of each individual offense and to allow defendant to prepare a defense. The Supreme Court expressly overruled State v. Wilkins, 225 N.C. App. 492 (2013), which improperly elevated form over substance when interpreting the requirements of section 14-415.1(c). State v. Newborn , 384 N.C. 656 (2023) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Delinquency petition—misdemeanor sexual battery—force—sufficiency of allegations—A juvenile delinquency petition was not fatally defective where it contained sufficient facts to support each essential element of misdemeanor sexual battery, in particular the element of force, which was clearly inferable from allegations that the juvenile willfully engaged in sexual conduct with a classmate by touching her vaginal area against her will for the purpose of sexual gratification. In re J.U. , 384 N.C. 618 (2023) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Written notice of injury to employer—delayed treatment—causal relation of injury—sufficiency of evidence—The Industrial Commission properly entered an opinion and award in favor of plaintiff, who, as an employee of a trucking company along with her husband, sustained spinal injuries in a work-related tractor-trailer accident in which her husband was also injured. Competent evidence, including expert testimony from plaintiff's spinal neurosurgeon, supported the Commission's findings of fact, which in turn supported its conclusions of law that: plaintiff's injury was causally related to the accident despite having some pre-existing medical conditions; that, although plaintiff filed an immediate report of the accident itself and her husband's injury, she had a reasonable excuse for delaying written notice of her own injury for a year and a half and her employer was not prejudiced by the delay; and that plaintiff was temporarily totally disabled and unable to work as of a particular date for a specified number of months. Sprouse v. Mary B. Turner Trucking Co., LLC , 384 N.C. 635 (2023) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)