motion to suppress; Summers detention; occupant of premises being searched

Summary Judgment; Piercing the Corporate Veil; Entry of Default

Competing motions for summary judgment; contradictory affidavits created genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment improper

Modification of child support order; change in custody was substantial change in circumstances; exercise of subject matter jurisdiction proper

Findings of fact required to support alimony award.

Divorce proceedings; appeal from trial court's equitable distribution judgment and order; application of N.C.G.S. 50-20; whether the trial court failed to join necessary parties to the equitable distribution action.

Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court's findings of fact supported its conclusion of law that respondent-mother's parental rights should be terminated pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(2).

Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred by finding there was sufficient evidence of respondent's willful failure to pay child support or that respondent willfully abandoned his children; whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the children's best interests.

Appeal from dismissal of respondent-father's appeal from an order terminating his parental rights; whether the Court of Appeals was required to conduct an independent review of the merits of the father's arguments after his appellate counsel submitted a no-merit brief pursuant to Appellate Rule 3.1.

Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court received sufficient evidence and made adequate findings of fact to support an adjudication of grounds under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(5) and (9).

Appeal from adjudication and disposition orders finding the juvenile was delinquent based on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting a public officer; whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the charges for insufficient evidence; whether the Court of Appeals erred in vacating the trial court's orders.

Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that terminating respondent's parental rights was in the best interests of the juveniles.

Appeal from convictions for first-degree murder (noncapital) and related firearms offenses; whether the trial court violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront the principal witness against him, and if so, whether the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, thus entitling defendant to a new trial.

Whether double jeopardy prevented defendant from being tried for murder a second time after his first trial ended in a mistrial because of a deadlocked jury and the State then voluntarily dismissed the charge under N.C.G.S. 15A-931.

Whether a nineteen-year-old defendant should receive a new trial after being convicted of child abduction and statutory rape of a fourteen-year-old girl; whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting a copy of defendant's affidavit of indigency at trial, thereby establishing defendant's age, which was an essential element of these offenses.

Appeal from order imposing lifetime satellite-based monitoring on a defendant found to be a recidivist; whether the Court of Appeals erred by determining that, under the circumstances, the trial court's order effected an unreasonable search in violation of defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant's house and vehicle; whether the affidavit for the search warrant contained sufficient information to establish probable cause to conduct the searches.

Appeal from convictions for breaking and entering and larceny after breaking and entering; whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions based on the doctrine of recent possession of the stolen goods.

Whether the trial court erred in revoking defendant's probation under N.C.G.S. 15A-1344(f) after his probationary term expired; whether the trial court made a sufficient finding of 'good cause shown and stated' to comply with N.C.G.S. 15A-1344(f)(3).

Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that a rock-like substance found in defendant's hotel room was heroin even though the State did not conduct a scientifically valid chemical analysis of the substance.