Interlocutory order—substantial right—sufficiency of factual basis—The decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing a town's appeal from an interlocutory order (in which the trial court dismissed the town's claims for lack of standing but allowed another municipality's claims to proceed) was reversed where the town provided in its statement of appellate review a sufficient factual basis for immediate review pursuant to Creek Pointe Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Happ, 146 N.C. App. 159 (2001) (allowing immediate review under similar circumstances). The matter was remanded for the lower appellate court to consider the parties' arguments on the issue of standing. Gardner v. Richmond Cnty. , No. 140PA23 (N.C. Oct. 18, 2024) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

Challenge to Certificate of Need law—claims not limited to as-applied challenge—facial challenge implicated—remand required—In a case challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina's Certificate of Need law, although plaintiffs asserted that their claims constituted an "as-applied" challenge, where the allegations in their complaint, if proven, could render the law unconstitutional in all its applications, the trial court and Court of Appeals mistakenly treated the claims exclusively as as-applied challenges rather than both as-applied and facial challenges. The lower courts' decisions were vacated and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. Singleton v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs. , No. 260PA22 (N.C. Oct. 18, 2024) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

Driving while impaired—aggravating factors—found by trial judge instead of jury—harmless error review—In a prosecution for impaired driving, although the trial judge violated N.C.G.S. § 20-179(a1)(2) by finding the existence of aggravating factors–since "only a jury may determine if an aggravating factor is present"–the error was not automatically reversible because it was subject to harmless error analysis (i.e., whether the trial judge's actions prejudiced defendant). The decision of the Court of Appeals determining that the statute violation mandated resentencing–and that harmless error review was inapplicable–was reversed, and the matter was remanded for application of the correct standard of review. State v. King , No. 119A23 (N.C. Oct. 18, 2024) (Author: Justice Trey Allen)