Whether an easement granting Duke Energy an interest in Lake Norman vested Duke Energy with the right to permit third-party homeowners to build structures over and into the submerged easement property and use the waters for recreational purposes.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that a settlement agreement was ambiguous and by reversing the trial court's summary judgment order.

On petition for rehearing, whether the three-judge panel properly applied this Court's standards from Harper I in assessing the General Assembly's remedial redistricting plans and, more fundamentally, whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution.

Whether S.B. 824, a law implementing the peoples' choice to amend the North Carolina Constitution by requiring in-person voters to present photographic identification, violates Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by determining that the trial court made sufficient findings of fact to support termination of parental rights.

Termination of parental rights; whether the Court of Appeals erred by vacating and remanding for a new termination hearing when the trial court had dismissed provisional counsel in accordance with N.C.G.S. 7B-1108.1(a)(1) and N.C.G.S. 7B-1101.1(a)(1).

Clarifying that the standard of review for an appellate court at the adjudicatory stage of a termination of parental rights proceeding is to determine whether there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings of fact, and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law.

Whether the trial court erred by declining to conduct further inquiry into defendant's capacity to proceed following an apparent suicide attempt.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by vacating the trial court's adjudications orders and remanding with instructions to grant specific visitation criteria.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by determining that the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusion of law adjudicating a minor a neglected juvenile.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that plaintiff-appellant stated a cognizable claim under Article I, Section 1 of the North Carolina Constitution but failed to state a cognizable claim under Article I, Section 19.

Whether the Due Process Clause permits the trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state corporate and individual defendants based on business-related activities that the defendants conducted in North Carolina.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that a jury's guilty verdict was ambiguous and whether N.C.G.S. ss 14-17(b)(1) requires a criminal defendant to be sentenced for a Class B2 felony when there is evidence introduced at trial that the defendant engaged in an inherently dangerous act or omission, done in such a reckless and wanton manner as to manifest a mind utterly without regard for human life and social duty and deliberately bent on mischief.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was no error in the trial court's order finding that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky.

Whether the trial court's order on remand finding no Batson violation was clear error.

Whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law suffice to support the trial court's order of attorneys' fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. 6-21.5 (2021).

Whether North Carolina's Real Property Marketable Title Act exempts all restrictive covenants pertaining to a general or uniform scheme of development that restricts property to residential use.

Whether plaintiffs Cedarbrook Residential Center and Fred Leonard stated valid claims for negligence on the part of defendant North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services based upon the manner in which it inspected and took regulatory action against plaintiffs' adult care facility, whether any such claim is barred by sovereign immunity, and whether the public duty doctrine is available to defendant as an affirmative defense.