Supreme Court of North Carolina

The court held that the complaint adequately pleaded claims for breach of contract, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and defamation under North Carolina’s liberal notice-pleading standard.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the admission of the challenged expert testimony, even if improper vouching, was not plain error because the defendant failed to show that it probably affected the verdict.

The Court affirmed that Williams was entitled to a castle-doctrine jury instruction because he was inside his vehicle when the attack began, exited in response to the attack, and used deadly force while the assault continued.

The court held that replacing a sitting juror with an alternate after deliberations began was constitutional because the trial court excused the sitting juror first and instructed the reconstituted jury to begin deliberations anew.

The Court held that probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search must be assessed under the totality of the circumstances, with the odor of cannabis treated as one factor rather than an independently dispositive justification.

The court held that the State presented substantial evidence from which a jury could find that defendant constructively possessed the firearm found in an unlocked dresser in a shared bedroom.

The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Moore’s first-degree kidnapping conviction. It held that, although restraints necessary to suffocate the victim were inherent in the murder, additional cables and zip ties that bound her to the bed and contorted her body constituted substantial evidence of an…

The court held that McGirt clearly and unequivocally elected to waive appointed counsel and represent himself based on his written waivers, statements, and overall course of conduct.

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ discretionary decision to issue a writ of certiorari permitting defendant to pursue a belated direct appeal. It held that the second panel did not violate law-of-the-case principles because the first panel dismissed the petition without prejudice and the renewed petition…

The Court held that successive petitions to terminate sex-offender registration under the applicable statute are part of the same underlying proceeding and are governed by law of the case.

The Court held that defendant’s ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally barred because the claims were apparent from the direct-appeal record and defendant failed to raise them on direct appeal.

The Court held that the Habitual Felon Act does not prohibit filing a habitual-felon indictment before the indictment or commission of the principal felony, so the Court of Appeals improperly granted appropriate relief on that issue.

The court held that claims alleging ineffective assistance based on counsel's unconsented concession of guilt are generally governed by the two-part deficient-performance and prejudice inquiry, rather than an automatic presumption of prejudice.

The court held that personal goodwill tied to a professional practitioner cannot be classified as marital property in an equitable-distribution proceeding because it represents the practitioner's prospective earning capacity and cannot be distributed or transferred independently of the practitioner.

The court vacated the discovery order because the trial court committed two legal errors under the Rules of Civil Procedure. First, the trial court improperly treated objections to Rule 30(b)(5) document requests as untimely when they were served within the rule's seven-day deadline.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s complaint plausibly stated a constitutional claim against the school board for deliberate indifference to conduct that impaired her equal access to a sound basic education.

The Court held that failure to join a necessary party under Rule 19 does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction and that the defendant's Rule 19 challenge was not waived in these circumstances.

The Court vacated the renewed class-certification order because the trial court again used conflicting class definitions and analysis, preventing meaningful appellate review. The Court also held that the proposed class was not ascertainable because identifying dealership visitors would require individualized factual…

The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed in part and vacated in part the Court of Appeals decision, holding that the issue of whether the State presented sufficient evidence for two separate assault by strangulation counts was not properly preserved because the defendant never filed a motion to dismiss those…

The court held that the totality of the circumstances supported reasonable suspicion for the Terry search of Rowdy and probable cause for the warrantless search of his automobile.

The court held that the Governor's commutation of defendant's death sentence to life imprisonment without parole eliminated his right to a direct appeal in the Supreme Court under the capital-case jurisdiction statute and related automatic-review provision.

The court reversed the Court of Appeals' remand for an evidentiary hearing, holding that defendant expressly consented to counsel's concessions concerning both elements of firearm possession and that counsel did not otherwise concede guilt.

The Court held that a defendant who pleads guilty to attaining habitual felon status does not have a statutory right to appeal a challenge to the factual basis for that plea under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(a2)(3).

The Court held that the unobjected-to admission and publication of extensive cell-phone text-message and multimedia reports did not constitute plain error. Although the exhibits had potential to inflame the jury, the remaining evidence—including the victim's gunshot wounds, the physical scene, the defendant's limited…

The court held that the trial court prejudicially erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior felony convictions because the evidence was relevant to the defendant's state of mind and the reasonableness of his claimed fear during the shooting.

The Court held that officers had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle under the automobile exception. Applying the totality of the circumstances, it considered the traffic violation, marijuana odor, independently detected cover scent, occupants’ criminal histories, and pending charges, while…

The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that when the Governor commutes a death sentence to life imprisonment without a court vacating the original judgment, initial appellate jurisdiction remains with the Court of Appeals under N.C.G.S. § 7A-27, and therefore remanded the case to that court.

The Court upheld the Commission’s approval of Duke Energy Progress’s and Duke Energy Carolinas’s performance-based rate plans. It concluded that the Commission properly interpreted the performance-based regulation statute, adequately supported its factual determinations with competent, material, and substantial…

The court upheld the Commission’s approval of Duke Energy Progress’s and Duke Energy Carolinas’s performance-based rate plans in the portions shown. It held that the Commission properly interpreted the governing statute, reasonably approved a 10% interclass-subsidy reduction, allowed estimated electric-vehicle…

The court affirmed summary judgment on the unjust-enrichment claim but otherwise reversed the appealed summary-judgment rulings and remanded. It held that the extensive spoliation required the Business Court to specify how an adverse inference applies to each claim, and it identified genuine factual disputes…

The Court held that the agreement's provision granting Langley a 10% ownership interest was void for indefiniteness because its integrated financing terms omitted essential details, including price, payment timing, and payment mechanics.

The Court adopted the Commission’s stipulated findings and conclusions that Judge Sean A. Cole violated Canons 1, 2A, and 5F by continuing to practice law after taking judicial office and by failing to wind down his solo practice despite repeated guidance.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina concluded that the petition for discretionary review had been improvidently allowed. It therefore did not decide whether the respondent-father’s consent was required for the adoption to proceed.

The North Carolina Supreme Court held that Currituck County’s occupancy tax statute does not bar the County from spending tax revenues on public‑safety services that are tied to tourism, and that the County exercised its discretion in a reasonable, non‑arbitrary manner.

The Supreme Court held that Rule 6(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to the 60‑day statutory deadline to commence a contested case under the Administrative Procedure Act, affirming the Court of Appeals and the dismissal of Bradley Home’s petition as untimely.

The court held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the 17 April 2023 order because the litigation had shifted from the as-applied claims pleaded in 1994 to an unpleaded statewide facial challenge.

The Court held that the first step of the Batson inquiry was not moot because the trial court expressly ruled that defendant had failed to establish a prima facie case and never proceeded to determine whether the State's reasons were pretextual.

The court held that the statutory good-faith exception in N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 applies only to evidence obtained through a substantial violation of Chapter 15A, not to evidence whose exclusion is constitutionally required.

The court held that the search warrant for defendant's vehicle was supported by probable cause even after excluding information obtained during the challenged knock and talk. Because the untainted facts established a fair probability that stolen property would be found in the vehicle, the court did not decide whether…

The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding a handwritten note under Rule 403, that the issue was properly preserved for review, and that the error was prejudicial requiring a new trial.