Medicaid reimbursements—class action—failure to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate futility—Where plaintiff medical practices sued the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the company that designed DHHS's software system for managing Medicaid reimbursements, alleging that they had not received reimbursement for Medicaid claims, the trial court correctly concluded that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and to demonstrate that available administrative remedies were inadequate. After receiving Remittance Statements indicating adverse determinations on Medicaid reimbursement claims, the providers failed to request a reconsideration review or to file a petition for a contested case, instead bypassing administrative procedures and filing a class action complaint in the trial court. In view of the inadequacy of notice, plaintiffs were still entitled to exhaust their available administrative remedies. Abrons Fam. Prac. & Urgent Care, PA v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 370 N.C. 443 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Preservation of issues—exclusion of testimony—not properly preserved—An argument by the Department of Transportation (DOT) that defendants did not properly preserve for appellate review the exclusion of a realtor's fair market value testimony was not properly before the N.C. Supreme Court. DOT's response to defendants' petition for discretionary review did not state any additional issues that DOT sought to present. Even so, defendants' offer of proof regarding the testimony was apparently sufficient to preserve the issue, regardless of whether defendants tried to call the witness to testify about fair market value at trial. N.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Mission Battleground Park, DST, 370 N.C. 477 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Mark Martin)

Law of the Land clause—job promotion—no property interest—The trial court did not err by granting the City's motion to dismiss a police officer's Article I, Section 19 claim. There is no authority recognizing a property interest in a job promotion, and the police officer conceded in his brief that no such property interest existed. Tully v. City of Wilmington, 370 N.C. 527 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

North Carolina—employer violation of own policy—refusal to consider appeal—exam required for promotion—police officer—The trial court erred by dismissing plaintiff police officer's constitutional claim arising under Article I, Section 1. A police officer states a claim under the North Carolina Constitution against his employer when that employer violates its own policy by refusing to consider his appeal regarding the validity of an examination required for a promotion. Tully v. City of Wilmington, 370 N.C. 527 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

North Carolina—supervisory or inherent authority—right to postconviction DNA testing—The Supreme Court declined to use its constitutional supervisory authority or inherent authority to order postconviction DNA testing. There was enough other incriminating evidence to convict and sentence defendant regardless of the results of any hair analysis. State v. Lane, 370 N.C. 508 (2018) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

Marijuana—constructive possession—plants growing on property—The trial court properly denied defendants' motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence charges of constructive possession of marijuana plants found growing on their property where a jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that defendants knowingly possessed the marijuana plants. State v. Chekanow, 370 N.C. 488 (2018) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

Condemnation—instructions—fair market value—The North Carolina Supreme Court declined to disturb Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Creasman, 262 N.C. 390, in a condemnation case, remanded on other grounds, which included an issue involving a fair market value instruction that was likely to recur. N.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Mission Battleground Park, DST, 370 N.C. 477 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Mark Martin)

Inverse condemnation—private purpose—Plaintiff homeowners were entitled to assert a statutory inverse condemnation claim pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 40A-51 based upon the extended flooding of their property as the result of actions taken by defendant City to adjust a lake's shore line for an allegedly private purpose. The statute did not make the availability of the remedy dependent upon whether the purpose that led to the taking was public or private. Wilkie v. City of Boiling Spring Lakes, 370 N.C. 540 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Exclusion of real estate broker's testimony—prejudicial—There was prejudice from the exclusion of a real estate broker's testimony in a case involving the condemnation of land for highway construction where there was a reasonable probability that the trial court would have admitted the broker's fair market value testimony under Rule 702 if the trial court had not excluded that testimony based on subsection 93A-83(f). Moreover, if the broker's testimony about fair market value had been admitted under Rule 702, there was a reasonable probability that his testimony would have affected the jury's verdict. N.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Mission Battleground Park, DST, 370 N.C. 477 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Mark Martin)

Hair sample—DNA testing—relevancy—sentencing—The trial court did not err in a first-degree murder case by concluding the hair sample DNA testing was not material to defendant's defense. There was no reasonable probability that the DNA testing of the hair samples would have changed the jury's recommendation of death. State v. Lane, 370 N.C. 508 (2018) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

Sorenson evidence—materiality analysis—hair sample testing—The trial court did not err in a first-degree murder case by considering the Sorenson evidence in its materiality analysis of defendant's hair sample testing request when there were contested factual issues regarding the validity of the Sorenson evidence. The evidence created an insurmountable hurdle to the success of defendant's materiality argument. State v. Lane, 370 N.C. 508 (2018) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

Contributory negligence—dram shop claim—The Court of Appeals erred by determining that plaintiff had stated a valid negligence per se dram shop claim pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 18B-305(a). The factual allegations of plaintiff's complaint established decedent's contributory negligence, and thus, the issue of the first-party dram shop claim was not considered. Davis v. Hulsing Enters., 370 N.C. 455 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Standing—homeowners associations—compliance with bylaws—Where the plaintiff homeowners associations (HOAs) filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of a zoning ordinance that permitted multifamily housing on parcels of land abutting property owned by plaintiffs, plaintiff HOAs' failure to comply with various provisions in their corporate bylaws when their respective boards of directors initiated litigation did not prevent them from having standing to bring the lawsuit. Willowmere Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Charlotte, 370 N.C. 553 (2018) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

Medical malpractice—minor—guardian ad litem appointed—The trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff's medical malpractice claims as time barred where the trial court had appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) on behalf of a minor and specifically tasked him with bringing an action on behalf of the minor. A minor plaintiff who continues under that status until age eighteen has one year to file the claim, but the appointment of a GAL in this case removed plaintiff's disability of minority so that the three-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions began running. King v. Albemarle Hosp. Auth., 370 N.C. 467 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Real estate broker—expert testimony—fair market value—The trial court erred by prohibiting a real estate broker from giving expert testimony about fair market value based on N.C.G.S. § 93A-83(f). The authority of a real estate broker to prepare an expert report and to testify as an expert in court comes from Rule of Evidence 702, not from Article 6 of Chapter 93A, which distinguishes between licensed brokers and licensed appraisers. N.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Mission Battleground Park, DST, 370 N.C. 477 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Mark Martin)