Appointment of a guardian ad litem pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1108; whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the best interests of the child.

Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred by concluding respondent willfully abandoned his child where respondent attended visitations with the child after the petition was filed; whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the child's best interest.

Appeal from an order terminating respondent's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); neglect.

Appeal from an order terminating parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2); whether the trial court's adjudicatory findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence; and whether those findings were sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion of law that grounds existed to terminate respondent's parental rights on the basis of neglect based upon a prior adjudication of neglect and a likelihood of repetition of neglect.

Appeal from an order terminating parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2); whether the trial court issued sufficient findings of fact regarding progress leading up to the termination hearing to support its ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law that grounds existed to terminate parental rights; whether the trial court abused its discretion in terminating parental rights.

Whether payments made pursuant to an agreement between the Attorney General's Office and major hog producers constitute 'penalties' subject to article IX, section 7 of the North Carolina Constitution.

Conditional Use Permits; Whether the City of Asheville properly denied a developer's application for a conditional use permit to build a hotel in downtown Asheville; Whether a local government may independently assess an application for a conditional use permit and make findings of fact that support denying that permit when no one offers evidence in opposition to that permit or, alternatively, whether a developer is automatically entitled to the issuance of a conditional use permit when no one presents evidence in opposition to the permit.

Medical malpractice 9(j) certification; medical expert willing to testify; facially valid 9(j) certificate

Whether the Business Court erred in denying the tax refund claim as procedurally defective because the taxpayer changed the basis of its refund.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals holding that defendant could only be convicted of a single count of possession of a firearm on educational property, despite his simultaneous possession of five firearms.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled defendant's objections during the prosecutor's closing argument.

Whether (1) defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the State's evidence were preserved; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant aided and abetted; and (3) the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant obtained a 'thing of value' as defined under N.C.G.S. 14-100.

Whether there is an irreconcilable conflict between N.C.G.S. 160A-360(e) and N.C.G.S. 160A-360(f), as amended by Session Law 1999-35, that invalidates the applicability of subsection (e).

Appeal from an order and opinion of the Business Court concluding that insurers can depreciate labor costs when calculating actual cash value.

Appeal from Business Court orders denying plaintiffs' motion for entry of default judgment; whether defendant's contacts with North Carolina were sufficient to support a determination that personal jurisdiction existed.

Whether the General Assembly authorized Oak Island to impose sewer district fees on owners of undeveloped parcels of property.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-27(a)(3) from an order and opinion on defendants' motion to stay all proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds; whether the Business Court erred by granting a stay in favor of defendants where plaintiff's claims under North Carolina and English law challenge the North Carolina-based conduct of the North Carolina-based officials most responsible for the failure of a global clinical drug; and whether the Business Court erred by staying the case without affording plaintiff limited jurisdictional discovery to clarify the contested ties between the claims asserted and the potential forums.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the trial court did not have the authority to consider plaintiff's motions to amend its complaint to reduce its just compensation deposit after defendant attempted to voluntarily dismiss its claim for additional compensation.

Whether plaintiffs retained a right of first refusal contained in an original lease during a holdover year-to-year tenancy created by operation of law; whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants.