Inverse condemnation declaratory judgment action—prior direct condemnation action pending—damages left unresolved—A municipality was precluded from filing an action seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its claim of inverse condemnation where an earlier direct condemnation action regarding the same sewer easement across private property remained pending in that a judgment entered by the trial court in the direct condemnation action–which held that the taking of the sewer easement was for a private purpose (and that the public's interest was merely incidental) such that the municipality's exercise of eminent domain was null and void–left unresolved the issue of damages (including the appropriate remedy) because the municipality had already installed a sewer line in the easement. Town of Apex v. Rubin , No. 206PA21 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Allison Riggs)

Renewal of school bus driver's certificates—falsified records—applicability of section 20-34.1—The N.C. Department of Transportation (DOT) did not have just cause to terminate from employment a driver education program specialist pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 20-34.1, which criminalizes the act of knowingly entering "false information concerning a drivers license or a special identification card" into official records, because the statute did not apply to the specialist's conduct recertifying several school bus drivers without having conducted ride-along observations of those drivers. A school bus driver's certificate does not qualify as a "drivers license" for purposes of section 20-34.1, since it is a separate driving credential. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals (reversing the final decision of the administrative law judge finding no just cause) was reversed, and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate court for consideration of the DOT's remaining arguments on appeal. Savage v. N.C. Dep't of Transp. , No. 235PA23 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Standard of review—statutory interpretation—agency deference disavowed—de novo review applicable—The Supreme Court clarified that the proper standard of review for courts reviewing a state agency's interpretation of a state statute is de novo review; although an agency's reasoning may be instructive, it is not controlling. The Supreme Court expressly disavowed the application of deference to an agency decision and overruled prior case law from the Court of Appeals requiring agency deference. Savage v. N.C. Dep't of Transp. , No. 235PA23 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Juvenile abuse and neglect—unpreserved issues—analyzed on appellate review—improper—When reversing part of the Court of Appeals' decision vacating a neglect adjudication in a juvenile abuse and neglect case, the Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals' analysis of issues that the parties neither raised before the trial court nor addressed in their appellate briefs, thereby underscoring the well-settled rule that appellate courts may not "create an appeal" for an appellant by addressing issues that were never raised below. Further, the Court specifically rejected the analysis of whether the adjudication order constituted an "ultimatum" to "confess [to the abuse] or lose your children" that violated "marital privilege," where marital privilege did not apply in juvenile proceedings such as this one. In re E.H. , No. 188PA24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Neglect—based on abuse of infant sibling—other factors suggesting risk of future harm—In an abuse and neglect matter involving two children, where the trial court adjudicated the younger child as abused and neglected after the child–a three-week-old baby at the time–presented at a hospital with multiple acute fractures, the trial court properly adjudicated the older sibling as neglected based on the younger sibling's abuse where it found that the parents' home was an "injurious environment" posing a substantial risk of similar harm to any child living there, since the parents: (1) had no plausible explanation for the younger child's injuries, (2) refused to take responsibility for the injuries (despite evidence that the fractures resulted from non-accidental trauma), and (3) did nothing to remedy the environment that caused the harm or to assure social workers that the abuse would not happen again. In re E.H. , No. 188PA24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Custody modification—escalating conflict—effect on children's health and welfare—substantial change in circumstances—best interests of the children—The Supreme Court upheld an order modifying child custody–from granting the parents joint custody to granting the mother primary physical custody and final decision-making authority on major parenting decisions–where the trial court's findings of fact supported its conclusions of law that a substantial change in circumstances affecting the children's welfare had occurred and that modifying custody was in the children's best interests. Specifically, the court found that an ongoing conflict between the parties had escalated, with the father exhibiting increasing hostility to one of the parenting coordinators assigned to the case, as well as an unwillingness to communicate or cooperate with the mother or the parenting coordinator regarding the children's medical care. Further, the court found that the conflict adversely affected the children's health and welfare, especially where the father refused to take both children to their weekly therapy appointments or to administer necessary medication prescribed to one of the children to treat asthma. Durbin v. Durbin , No. 78A24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Allison Riggs)

Closing argument—request to read excerpts from appellate opinions to jury—properly denied—In plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action to determine whether keeping chickens on their property violated their homeowner’s association's restrictive covenants, the trial court correctly denied plaintiffs' counsel's request to read excerpts from two Court of Appeals decisions (addressing restrictive covenants as they applied to animals) to the jury during closing arguments where the passages counsel sought to read were largely composed of facts from the two earlier cases–which may not used to imply that a jury should return a favorable verdict in the case at bar. Moreover, the jury was only deciding two factual issues–whether the chickens were household pets or were kept for commercial purposes–rendering any statements of law about interpreting restrictive covenants from the passages in the earlier cases irrelevant. Schroeder v. Oak Grove Farm Homeowners Ass'n , No. 123PA24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Summary judgment—motion to strike portions of affidavit—conclusory statements and inadmissible legal conclusions—lack of specific facts—In a dispute between two businessmen, where plaintiff alleged that he and defendant had formed a common law general partnership to acquire a group of restaurants, which defendant ultimately purchased on his own, the Business Court did not abuse its discretion at summary judgment when it granted defendants' motion to strike portions of plaintiff's affidavit containing conclusory statements and "bare assertions of belief" unsupported by specific facts. For example, one of the stricken paragraphs merely announced plaintiff's belief that he could have bought the restaurants if defendant had not done so, while another paragraph alleged that plaintiff had "various financing options" available without identifying any specific financing options. Further, the Business Court properly struck any references to the formation of a "partnership" and to defendant's alleged "misappropriation" of a business opportunity, since those terms amounted to legal conclusions that the court could not consider on summary judgment. Cutter v. Vojnovic , No. 229A24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Summary judgment—unsworn expert witness report—properly excluded—In a dispute between two businessmen, where the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims before the Business Court, the court did not err in disregarding an unsworn report by plaintiff's purported expert witness, since the plain language of Civil Procedure Rule 56 did not identify unsworn expert reports as evidence that could properly be considered on a motion for summary judgment. Cutter v. Vojnovic , No. 229A24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Class certification—predominance issues—illegal sales promotion—differing referral statutes between states—The Supreme Court of North Carolina vacated the trial court's order certifying a class that consisted of all persons who bought a home water treatment system from defendants (the system's manufacturer and a national home improvement store) during a specified period of time, during which a sales promotion was in place that offered rewards to buyers for referring new customers. The class included both South Carolina and North Carolina residents, whose purchases would be governed by their respective states' laws, and, since the states' respective referral statutes differed on whether inducement was a required element (i.e., that the illegal sales promotion induced a claimant to enter into the sale), the class, as certified, did not meet the predominance criteria for class certification (requiring that common issues of law or fact predominate over issues affecting only individual claimants) because South Carolina's statute would necessitate a plaintiff-by-plaintiff evaluation of who was induced by the sales promotion to buy the treatment system. Jackson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , No. 334A23 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Predominance issues—illegal sales promotion—certification vacated—considerations on remand—In a putative class action lawsuit brought by a purchaser of a home water treatment system, who alleged that the sellers violated North Carolina's referral statute (N.C.G.S. § 25A-37, prohibiting sales promotions offering a discount or other benefit in exchange for referring prospective customers), where the Supreme Court vacated the trial court's class certification order because the class included members whose claims defeated the predominance criteria for certification, the Court directed that the following additional issues were to be considered on remand: (1) whether plaintiff's claim for the return of "all consideration paid" by class members for the treatment systems would involve individualized fact determinations that would defeat class certification; (2) whether plaintiff's claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices would also involve individualized fact determinations regarding actual harm suffered by each claimant; and (3) whether a class action remained the superior method for adjudicating the rest of the claims and resultant remedies. Jackson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , No. 334A23 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

North Carolina—Corum claim—Equal Protection—economic regulation—rational basis review—In an action brought by a group of bar owners and employees (plaintiffs) challenging executive orders issued by the governor (defendant) restricting plaintiffs' businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, where plaintiffs raised a claim pursuant to Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761 (1992), alleging that defendant's executive orders violated the state constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by arbitrarily treating plaintiffs' private bars differently from other businesses serving alcohol, the Supreme Court held that, under rational basis review, the different treatment of businesses under the executive orders had a conceivable rational relationship to the legitimate governmental interest of reducing COVID-19 transmission. In so holding, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision upholding plaintiffs' equal protection claim under strict scrutiny review, since economic regulations (such as the restrictions imposed under the executive orders), absent the involvement of a suspect class or fundamental right, were generally subject to rational basis review. N.C. Bar and Tavern Ass'n v. Stein , No. 126PA24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

North Carolina—Corum claim—Fruits of Labor Clause—legal standard for appellate review—In an action brought by a group of bar owners and employees (plaintiffs) challenging executive orders issued by the governor (defendant) restricting plaintiffs' businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, where plaintiffs raised a claim pursuant to Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761 (1992), alleging that defendant's executive orders violated their constitutional right to earn a living under the state constitution's Fruits of Labor Clause, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' determination that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant on that Corum claim. However, because the Court of Appeals applied rational basis review to the claim when the proper standard required a fact-intensive inquiry into whether defendant's actions were reasonably necessary to promote public health or prevent public harm, the Court modified the decision to reflect the correct legal standard and remanded the case to the trial court to reopen factual discovery on the reasonableness of the governor's actions. N.C. Bar and Tavern Ass'n v. Stein , No. 126PA24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

North Carolina—Corum claims—not barred by sovereign immunity—A complaint filed by owners and operators of bars across North Carolina against the state and certain elected officials, alleging that executive orders issued by the governor to address the COVID-19 pandemic violated plaintiffs' state constitutional rights to earn a living (pursuant to the Fruits of Their Own Labor and Law of the Land clauses) by first ordering the closure of bars and then imposing restrictions so severe that they could not reopen (including allowing alcohol sales only in outdoor seating areas and barring alcohol sales between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.), pled facts that were sufficient to survive defendants' motion to dismiss. Sovereign immunity did not bar plaintiffs' direct claims against the state (known as Corum claims) because plaintiffs alleged–in addition to state action and the absence of any other adequate, alternative state remedy (pleading requirements that were undisputed in the case)–a colorable state constitutional claim; namely, that the restrictions imposed effectively forced bars to stay closed for nine months and were not reasonably necessary. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals–affirming the trial court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss–was modified (as to the applicable standards in reviewing the trial court's ruling) and affirmed. Howell v. Cooper , No. 252A23 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

North Carolina—Corum claims—validity—"adequate state remedy" versus "least intrusive remedy"—sovereign immunity not a bar —In an action brought by a group of bar owners and employees (plaintiffs) challenging executive orders issued by the governor (defendant) restricting plaintiffs' businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, sovereign immunity did not preclude plaintiffs' claims brought pursuant to Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761 (1992), because plaintiffs satisfied all of the criteria for raising valid Corum claims, including the requirement that there be no "adequate state remedy" available. Importantly, defendant's main argument–that sovereign immunity precluded plaintiffs' claims because damages were not the least intrusive remedy–incorrectly conflated two stages of legal analysis: the ex ante determination of whether an adequate state remedy existed (a required element of a Corum claim) and the post-trial determination of the least intrusive remedy once a constitutional violation has been proven. Further, defendant's argument that plaintiffs should have sought a preliminary injunction was rejected as circular, since the Corum claims themselves would have been the only vehicle for seeking such relief. N.C. Bar and Tavern Ass'n v. Stein , No. 126PA24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Retail Sales Installment Act—illegal sales promotion—referral statute—no inducement element—In a putative class action lawsuit brought by a purchaser of a home water treatment system, who alleged that the sellers violated N.C.G.S. § 25A-37 by offering a sales promotion that promised a discount or other benefit in exchange for referring prospective customers, the Supreme Court determined that, based on the plain language of the statute, inducement was not an essential element of the statutory violation. Jackson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , No. 334A23 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Sewer—taken for a private purpose—null and void—title revested in landowner—remanded for determination of proper remedy—Where a municipality filed a complaint and declaration of taking for a sewer easement (to which the landowner objected on the ground that the taking was for a private purpose) and then installed a sewer pipe based upon its own opinion as to its authority to do so–after which the trial court determined that the taking was for a private purpose (and that the public's interest was merely incidental) such that the municipality's exercise of eminent domain was null and void–title of the sewer easement was revested in the landowner. Therefore, the landowner was entitled to seek a mandatory injunction requiring the municipality to remove the sewer line, and the matter was remanded for a weighing of the equities by the trial court to determine whether a such an injunction or money damages would be the proper remedy for the continuing trespass of the sewer pipe on the landowner's property. Town of Apex v. Rubin , No. 206PA21 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Allison Riggs)

Definition of "animal" in a county's animal control ordinance—not included in restrictive covenants at issue—risk that jury would be misled—exclusion proper—In plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action to determine whether keeping chickens on their property violated their homeowner’s association's restrictive covenants, the trial court properly excluded evidence plaintiffs sought to introduce–the text of a county animal control ordinance which defined the term "animal," referenced in a different portion of the restrictive covenants–where the provision of the restrictive covenants at issue prohibited "animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind" except for "household pets," and the latter term was not defined in the restrictive covenants. Permitting plaintiffs to argue that the ordinance definition of "animal" controlled the definition of "household pets" in the restrictive covenants would have misled the jury. Schroeder v. Oak Grove Farm Homeowners Ass'n , No. 123PA24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Emergency Management Act—private bar closures during pandemic—affirmative appropriation or possession of private property—required—In an action brought by a group of bar owners and employees (plaintiffs) challenging executive orders issued by the governor (defendant) restricting plaintiffs' businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, plaintiffs' were not entitled to compensation under the Emergency Management Act because the restrictions placed under the orders did not constitute a "taking" or "use" of plaintiffs' property as defined by the Act. Specifically, the Act required ​a showing of affirmative appropriation or possession of private property by defendant, not merely restrictions on its use. N.C. Bar and Tavern Ass'n v. Stein , No. 126PA24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Restrictive covenants—nonpattern instructions—request properly denied—In plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action to determine whether keeping chickens on their property violated their homeowner’s association's restrictive covenants, the trial court did not err in declining to give ten nonpattern jury instructions requested by plaintiffs. The first group of instructions–four statements of law concerning the interpretation of restrictive covenants–was properly rejected because the trial court had interpreted the restrictive covenants as a matter of law and the two factual issues submitted to the jury were whether the chickens were household pets and whether they were kept for a commercial purpose. The second group–five recitations and interpretations of dictionary definitions of the words "poultry," "pet," and "household"–was properly rejected because those words were undefined in the restrictive covenants and thus were to be accorded their ordinary meanings. The issue of the final requested instruction–regarding Civil Procedure Rule 30(b)(6) depositions–was abandoned because plaintiffs did not address it on appeal. Schroeder v. Oak Grove Farm Homeowners Ass'n , No. 123PA24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Contributory negligence—summary judgment—golfing accident—open and obvious risk—lack of situational awareness—In a negligence action in which plaintiff sought to recover damages after being hit in the eye by a golf ball, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendants (the golfer whose stray ball struck plaintiff and the city that owned the property) because plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Uncontradicted evidence established a line of sight between plaintiff–who sat in a golf cart looking down at his phone with no awareness of what was occurring around him–and the tee-off area, and, viewed objectively, the evidence showed an open and obvious risk that a prudent person would have noticed. Moseley v. Hendricks , No. 63A24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Trey Allen)

Derivative claims—general partner—on behalf of alleged general partnership—no standing—In a dispute between two businessmen, where plaintiff alleged that he and defendant had formed a common law general partnership (defendant-entity) to acquire a group of restaurants, which defendant ultimately purchased on his own, the Business Court's order and opinion dismissing plaintiff's derivative claims on behalf of defendant-entity was affirmed, since plaintiff lacked standing to bring those claims because neither the Uniform Partnership Act nor any other statute authorized a general partner to assert a derivative action against another general partner on behalf of a general partnership. Cutter v. Vojnovic , No. 229A24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Formation—sufficiency of evidence—absence of material term—agreement on loss-sharing not required—In a dispute between two businessmen, where plaintiff alleged that he and defendant had formed a common law general partnership (defendant-entity) to acquire a group of restaurants, which defendant ultimately purchased on his own, the Business Court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims–for judicial dissolution and an accounting of defendant-entity, along with claims against defendant alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and of the alleged partnership agreement–that depended on the existence of a partnership, since the undisputed evidence showed that the parties did not create a partnership but only "hoped" to do so. Specifically, the parties never agreed on how to finance the restaurant purchase–a material term of the purported partnership agreement–meaning that they were never even on their way toward the co-ownership or profit sharing necessary to prove partnership formation. Although the Business Court's decision was affirmed on this issue, it was also modified to clarify that an explicit agreement on loss-sharing is not required to show the creation of a partnership under North Carolina law. Cutter v. Vojnovic , No. 229A24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Judgment on the pleadings—sufficiency of factual allegations—conclusory statement insufficient—In a dispute between two businessmen, where plaintiff alleged that he and defendant had formed a common law general partnership (defendant-entity) to acquire a group of restaurants, which defendant ultimately purchased on his own, the Business Court's order granting partial judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant-entity on plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage was affirmed, since the one allegation in plaintiff's complaint asserting that defendant-entity "diverted the business opportunity away" from him was merely conclusory and lacked any supporting facts. Cutter v. Vojnovic , No. 229A24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Denial of justice officer certification—lack of good moral character—substantial evidence—not arbitrary and capricious—The Sheriffs' Education and Training Standards Commission did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it denied petitioner's application for justice officer certification indefinitely–based on petitioner's prior misconduct, which led to his being fired from the State Highway Patrol (SHP), including providing a false home address and falsifying time records–where substantial evidence supported the Commission's determination that petitioner lacked good moral character. Although petitioner presented evidence of character rehabilitation at the hearing on his contested case petition challenging the final agency decision–through two witnesses who were familiar with petitioner's work as a deputy sheriff and school resource officer in the years since he was fired from SHP–petitioner's evasive answers in response to the Commission's questions about the reasons for his firing (particularly in contrast with the detailed answers he provided to his own counsel's questions) demonstrated a lack of sincerity and candor from which the Commission could make its conclusion. The Supreme Court clarified the relevant time period for evaluating moral character (at the time the application was made, or, if the prima facie showing of good character was refuted, at any subsequent time that the applicant satisfied his or her burden of proof) and that any retroactive certification would only be to the point of time at which an applicant met the burden of proof. Devalle v. N.C. Sheriffs' Educ. & Training Standards Comm'n , No. 158PA23 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Public Records Act—request for records regarding executive orders—mediation requirements—no evidence of compliance—In an action brought by a group of bar owners and employees (plaintiffs) challenging executive orders issued by the governor (defendant) restricting plaintiffs' businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claim under the Public Records Act–alleging that defendant failed to comply with their request for public records related to the executive orders–where plaintiffs did not satisfy the mediation requirements outlined in the Act, thereby depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to decide the merits of the claim. Specifically, plaintiffs' complaint did include a request for mediation (or, alternatively, a waiver of the mediation requirement), but there was no evidence showing that plaintiffs appointed a mediator, conducted mediation, notified the trial court of the results, or established that waiver was appropriate. N.C. Bar and Tavern Ass'n v. Stein , No. 126PA24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Restrictive covenants—interpretation as a matter of law—“household pets”—chickens—directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict analysis—In plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action to determine whether keeping chickens on their property violated their homeowner’s association's restrictive covenants, the trial court correctly denied plaintiffs' motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was more than a scintilla of evidence that the chickens were not “household pets”–a category of animals allowed by the covenants, as opposed to livestock or other animals kept for commercial purposes, categories disallowed by the covenants–including that plaintiffs kept more than 60 chickens, could not recall the exact number or their names, spent only about 2 minutes per day with each chicken, and offered to sell eggs laid by the chickens on Facebook. The jury was properly asked to sort through the competing evidence offered at trial to resolve the issue of whether the chickens were household pets, and the Court of Appeals erred in finding error by the trial court. Schroeder v. Oak Grove Farm Homeowners Ass'n , No. 123PA24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Warrantless search of backpack—voluntary consent—constitutionally permissible—The trial court's conclusion that defendant–who was the subject of a tip from a confidential informant and who had been stopped by law enforcement officers after riding his bike on a path marked with a "No Trespassing" sign–voluntarily consented to the search of his backpack (in which a stolen handgun was discovered) was supported by the court's findings of fact, including that: (1) during the stop, although defendant told the officers that he was afraid of them, the officers maintained calm demeanors, never brandished weapons, and returned defendant's personal identification card to him; (2) after initially agreeing to a search of his backpack, defendant retracted his consent and then denied the officers' continued requests to search multiple times; and (3) eventually, defendant agreed to allow the officers to look into the backpack, which defendant opened, revealing the grip of a handgun. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals decision to the contrary was reversed. State v. Wright , No. 258PA23 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Contested case petition—as-applied constitutional challenge to tax statute—dismissal required—no subject matter jurisdiction in OAH—The Business Court, sitting as an appellate court, properly determined that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction over an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of N.C.G.S. § 105-122 (a tax law, known as the "franchise statute") under N.C.G.S. § 105-241.17 (conditions for filing a civil action challenging a tax statute as unconstitutional) because the OAH, an executive branch agency, had only the powers conferred upon it by the General Assembly and those powers did not include jurisdiction over the issue of a tax statute's constitutionality–a matter reserved to the judicial branch under the separation-of-powers clause of the North Carolina Constitution. Further, this holding comported with the proper reading of N.C.G.S. § 7A-45.4 (designation of complex business cases) with section 105-241.17; that is, interpreting those statutes in a manner to avoid finding a constitutional violation if such a construction is reasonable. N.C. Dep't of Revenue v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. , No. 242A23 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Trey Allen)

tortious interference with prospective economic advantage—sufficiency of evidence—In a dispute between two businessmen, where plaintiff alleged that he and defendant had formed a common law general partnership to acquire a group of restaurants, which defendant ultimately purchased on his own, the Business Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage because plaintiff failed to present evidence that he could have purchased the restaurants but for defendant's malicious interference. Plaintiff's affidavit and deposition testimony merely offered conclusory assertions that he would have been able to obtain financing for the restaurant purchase–all of which were properly stricken by the Business Court under Civil Procedure Rule 56. Further, the evidence showed that plaintiff could not have independently bought the restaurants without an operator to run the restaurants, and plaintiff did not know anyone other than defendant who was qualified as such. Cutter v. Vojnovic , No. 229A24 (N.C. Aug. 22, 2025) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)