Appellate Court Opinions

Slip opinions (court's decision in a case) filed and written by the justices of the Supreme Court or judges of the Court of Appeals

Search Case Summaries / Headnotes.
View PDF Volumes.

2,631 Appellate Court Opinions

, Supreme Court , 172A19 (Justice Anita Earls) , Published
In re J.H.

Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred in the disposition phase by finding that each of respondent-mother's children had a high probability of adoption.

, Supreme Court , 110A19 (Justice Mark Davis) , Published
In re K.N.

Appeal from an order terminating parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); whether the trial court's findings of facts are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; whether the trial court's findings of fact support its conclusion of law that grounds exist to terminate parental rights on the basis of neglect.

, Supreme Court , 229A19 (Justice Sam Ervin IV) , Published
In re S.D.C.

Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the availability of a potential relative placement at disposition.

, Supreme Court , 325PA18 (Justice Paul Newby) , Published
Daughtridge v. Tanager Land, LLC

Boundary dispute; whether the trial court erred in granting judgment for defendant in an action to quiet title and in determining the location of the boundary line at issue.

, Supreme Court , 425A18 (Per Curiam) , Published
Hamlet H.M.A., LLC v. Hernandez

Whether the conduct in this case was related to the rendering of professional services such that plaintiff is exempt from UDTP liability by the learned profession exception.

, Supreme Court , 65A19 (Justice Michael Morgan) , Published
In re A.R.A.

Termination of parental rights; whether the district court received sufficient evidence and made adequate findings of fact to support a termination of respondent's parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) (2017); whether the district court abused its discretion by concluding that termination was in one of the child's best interest.

, Supreme Court , 105A19 (Justice Michael Morgan) , Published
In re I.G.C.

Appeal from orders terminating respondents' parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) (2017); whether the district court's findings of fact supported its conclusion of law that respondent-mother's parental rights should be terminated; no-merit review of respondent-father's appeal pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(e).

, Supreme Court , 180A19 (Justice Michael Morgan) , Published
In re Z.V.A.

Termination of parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) (2017); whether the district court should have appointed respondent-mother a guardian ad litem; whether the district court's findings of fact supported its conclusion that respondent-father's parental rights were subject to termination; whether a statement by the district court reflected bias.

, Supreme Court , 252PA14-3 (Justice Mark Davis) , Published
State v. Campbell

Whether sufficient evidence existed to raise a jury question with regard to the larceny charge against defendant.

, Supreme Court , 189PA18 (Justice Sam Ervin IV) , Published
State v. Corey

Appeal from sentence imposed for sexual offenses with a child after the trial court failed to conduct a charge conference before instructing the jury concerning an aggravating factor that the jury then found to exist; whether the Court of Appeals erred in vacating defendant's sentence and remanding for a new jury trial to determine the existence of the aggravating factor; validity of indictment for sexual offense against a child.

, Supreme Court , 232A19 (Justice Cheri Beasley) , Published
In re J.B.S.

Appeal from an order terminating respondent's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1), (7) (2017). No-merit review pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

, Supreme Court , 214A19 (Justice Cheri Beasley) , Published
In re J.E.

Appeal from an order terminating respondent's parental rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) (2017). No-merit review pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

, Supreme Court , 184A19 (Justice Sam Ervin IV) , Published
In re N.D.A.

Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court's findings of fact support termination on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (7); whether the trial court acted impartially during the termination hearing.

, Supreme Court , 151A19 (Justice Robin Hudson) , Published
In re T.H.

Appeal from order terminating respondent's parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1), (8) (2017). No-merit review pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

, Supreme Court , 152A19 (Justice Paul Newby) , Published
In re Z.O.M.

Appeal from order terminating respondent's parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) (2017). No-merit review pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(e).

, Supreme Court , 115PA18 (Justice Robin Hudson) , Published
Intersal, Inc. v. Hamilton

Appeal from final decision of the Business Court; whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint seeking damages and declaratory relief based on a contractual dispute between the parties over, inter alia, media rights related to the recovery and disposition of artifacts from the shipwrecked Queen Anne's Revenge and the renewal of a search permit for the El Salvador vessel.

, Supreme Court , 126A18 (Justice Robin Hudson) , Published
State v. Ditenhafer

Appeal from convictions for (1) two counts of common law obstruction of justice, as elevated to a felony pursuant to N.C.G.S. 14-3(b), and (2) accessory after the fact to sexual activity by a substitute parent; whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's motions to dismiss all charges.

, Supreme Court , 379A17 (Justice Anita Earls) , Published
State v. Malone

Appeal from convictions for murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury; whether the trial court erred in allowing two eyewitnesses to make in-court identifications of defendant as the shooter; whether the Court of Appeals majority correctly found that the trial court violated defendant's right to due process, that the error was prejudicial, and that defendant should receive a new trial.