Whether the trial court committed plain error by admitting expert testimony vouching for the credibility of the victim-witness in a trial for first-degree sexual offense with a child under the age of thirteen, crime against nature, and indecent liberties with a child.

Appeal from trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop; whether police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle defendant was driving.

Direct review of trial court's new order on remand denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence; when defendant was questioned by police while he was involuntarily committed, whether he was 'in custody,' required to receive Miranda warnings, and told he was free to end the questioning.

Whether the trial court committed gross prejudicial error by not intervening ex mero motu in the prosecutor's closing argument implying that defendant's paid counsel and paid expert witness assisted defendant in committing perjury.

Whether an indictment intended to charge defendant with robbery with a dangerous weapon was fatally defective.

Appeal from final judgment of N.C. Business Court dismissing plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.

Appeals from 2013 and 2016 orders of the North Carolina Business Court interpreting pertinent provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the North Carolina Revenue Act and denying a tax deduction for Market Discount Income to Fidelity Bank; whether the North Carolina Business Court erred by dismissing Fidelity Bank's 2015 petition for judicial review of an Amended Final Agency Decision.

Appeals from 2013 and 2016 orders of the North Carolina Business Court interpreting pertinent provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the North Carolina Revenue Act and denying a tax deduction for Market Discount Income to Fidelity Bank; whether the North Carolina Business Court erred by dismissing Fidelity Bank's 2015 petition for judicial review of an Amended Final Agency Decision.

Interlocutory appeal from N.C. Business Court order denying partial summary judgment for defendant; application of N.C. Seed Law and Uniform Commercial Code to plaintiffs' complaints that defendant sold them mislabeled seed; whether defendant is allowed to limit plaintiffs' recovery of damages to the sale price of the seed or whether standard UCC remedies can apply.

Motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless traffic stop; whether the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle.

Admissibility of prior bad acts testimony against defendant under Evidence Rule 404(b); whether the trial court's failure to give a limiting instruction on the Rule 404(b) evidence was prejudicial error.

Whether governmental immunity bars a former employee's declaratory judgment complaint against the City seeking relief based on an employment contract between the parties.

Workers' Compensation; whether the Industrial Commission's findings of fact support the conclusion that plaintiff is not entitled to compensation for permanent partial disability.

Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's suit against the University; whether defendant properly raised a sovereign immunity defense before the trial court, thereby making defendant's interlocutory appeal from denial of its motion to dismiss immediately reviewable by an appellate court; whether plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed on mootness grounds.

Appeal from conviction for attempted first-degree rape of a child; whether the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the attempted rape charge for insufficiency of the evidence.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in invoking Appellate Rule 2 to consider defendant's unpreserved argument on appeal.

Whether N.C. Rule of Evidence 702(a1) requires a witness in a DWI case to be qualified as an expert pursuant to Rule 702(a) before he may testify to the issue of impairment related to HGN results; whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for a special jury instruction explaining that results of a chemical breath test were not conclusive evidence of impairment.

Whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial based upon the trial court's self-defense instructions.