Whether the trial court properly rejected the General Assembly's Remedial Congressional Plan and accepted the General Assembly's Remedial House Plan and Remedial Senate Plan.

Whether the trial court's order finding that a law imposing a photo identification requirement for voters violates the equal protection guarantee of Art. I section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution was supported by evidence in the record and properly applied governing legal standards.

Whether the record evidence and the trial court's findings of fact support its decision that respondent should have been involuntarily committed for additional inpatient mental health treatment.

Whether the trial court violated respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal in an involuntary commitment proceeding when the State did not appear and the trial court elicited evidence to support committing respondent.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying, without explanation, the city's Motion to Modify Restrictions.

Whether the trial judge violated respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal in an involuntary commitment proceeding by calling a witness and eliciting testimony to support committing respondent when counsel for the State did not appear.

Whether the trial court violated respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal in an involuntary commitment proceeding when the State did not appear and the trial court elicited evidence to support committing respondent.

Whether the trial court properly verified that a juvenile's permanent custodial placement (1) understood the legal significance of the child's placement within the home and (2) possessed the appropriate resources to serve as a permanent placement. Whether the trial court properly eliminated reunification as a permanent plan.

Whether respondent-parent's counsel was properly allowed to withdraw when, under the totality of the circumstances, the record reflected no notice to respondent-parent that his counsel could withdraw based upon his failure to appear at permanency planning hearings.

Whether the trial court violated respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal in an involuntary commitment proceeding when the State did not appear and the trial court elicited evidence to support committing respondent.

Whether the trial court violated respondent's confrontation right by incorporating the report of a non-testifying physician into its findings of fact and whether the trial court's findings were sufficient to support its involuntary commitment order.

Whether a deceased employee's prior filing of a workers' compensation claim is sufficient to invoke the Industrial Commission's jurisdiction over a dependent's subsequent claim for death benefits under N.C.G.S. 97-24.

Whether the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in McLeod v. J.E. Dilworth Co., 322 U.S. 327 (1944) prevents the assessment of North Carolina sales tax on purchases from a Wisconsin-based printing company for materials mailed into North Carolina to customers or their designees.

Declaratory judgment action by insured to determine extent to which various insurers are responsible for defense costs and indemnification for hundreds of product-liability claims based on the insurance policy provisions. Coverage under the policies is triggered when the claimant is exposed to the defective product, allocation of costs and damages should be pro rata among multiple insurers, and vertical exhaustion applies to coverage under excess policies.

Whether defendant's actions were sufficiently egregious to permit the trial court to determine that defendant had waived or forfeited her constitutional right to counsel.

Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by declining defendant's request to issue a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter.

Whether the admission of testimony describing the alleged victim's account as 'rock solid' constituted plain error.

Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for the second of two counts of first-degree kidnapping given that the indictment alleged that defendant had confined, restrained, and removed the victim for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a first-degree rape.

Whether the trial court possessed jurisdiction to revoke a defendant's probation after the defendant's term of probation had expired.

Whether sufficient evidence was presented to support an inference of defendant's intent to deceive.