Whether the SAFE Child Act's revival of previously time-barred civil claims was facially unconstitutional.

Whether the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules barred admission of cell phone records at trial.

Whether the Court of Appeals failed to consider defendant's state constitutional challenge to his sentences of life imprisonment without parole and whether the resentencing order complied with state constitutional requirements.

Whether plaintiff's service by publication in the county where defendant formerly lived and worked was insufficient under Rule 4(j1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Whether a plaintiff clothing-store company's claim for insurance coverage was properly dismissed where it alleged COVID-19 related losses but the policy contained a viral contamination exclusion.

Whether N.C.G.S. 116-311 provides statutory immunity to institutions of higher education for damages arising from COVID-19 pandemic.

Addressing the proper procedure for removal of a clerk of superior court under Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in addressing respondent's unpreserved constitutional challenge to removal of the child.

Whether the trial court's permanency-planning order complied with N.C.G.S. 7B-903, -906.1, and -906.2 of the Juvenile Code.

Whether restaurant closures necessitated by government orders responding to the COVID-19 crisis amounted to a direct physical loss for the purposes of business income and commercial property insurance coverage.

Whether N.C.G.S. 105-135.45 is ambiguous regarding application of the term credit allowed when calculating tax credits available to manufacturers of cigarettes for exportation.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent municipality properly denied petitioner's applications for permits necessary to build a charter school.

Whether defendant was properly sentenced to death on two counts of first-degree murder.

Whether defendant waived his statutory right to a court-ordered competency evaluation and hearing when he failed to raise the issue at trial.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of Section 97-29(c) of the Workers' Compensation Act and in affirming the Industrial Commission's opinion and award denying plaintiff extended compensation benefits under that provision.

Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding (1) defendants' use of a reasonable planning period not to exceed 20 years when assessing impact fees and (2) whether a 2016 reduction in impact fees was due to reasons other than an updated school impact fee study.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs' claim with prejudice under Rule 41(b).

Whether plaintiff's statement regarding grounds for appellate review adequately apprised the Court of Appeals as to how the trial court's order affected a substantial right.