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.

33,106 Appellate Court Opinions

, Court of Appeals , COA21-665 (Judge Lucy Inman) , Unpublished
State v. Titus Lee

burglary, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, rape, first-degree sex offenses against two college students; admissibility of expert?s testimony related to trauma and memory; North Carolina Rule of Evidence 702(a); apply principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case; motion for mistrial based on detective's erroneous and incurable testimony after sustained objections; substantial and irreparable prejudice; no prejudicial error

, Court of Appeals , COA21-688 (Judge April Wood) , Published
State v. Tripp

Double jeopardy; Fifth amendment; Substantive due process; Fourteenth amendment; Child abuse conviction and subsequent prosecution for murder; Elements of murder; Blockburger test; Same-Elements Test; Diaz v. United States; Diaz Exception; Double jeopardy exception; Same Conduct Test; Statute of limitations; States may afford greater protections than U.S. Constitution; Law of the Land clause

, Court of Appeals , COA22-338 (Judge Tobias Hampson) , Unpublished
State v. Walker

Motion to Dismiss; Intent; Possession with Intent to Manufacture, Sell, or Deliver Methamphetamine

, Court of Appeals , COA22-291 (Judge Donna Stroud) , Published
State v. Walters

motion to suppress, plain error, hemp, Fourth Amendment

, Court of Appeals , COA22-316 (Judge Richard Dietz) , Unpublished
State v. William Reid, Jr.

Assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury; habitual felon; guilty plea; Anders brief; no prejudicial error

, Court of Appeals , COA22-268 (Judge John Arrowood) , Unpublished
State v. Xavier Underwood

duress jury instruction; motion to dismiss; accessory after the fact to first-degree murder

, Court of Appeals , COA22-271 (Judge Allegra Collins) , Published
Abdo v. Jones

Discovery Violations; Rule 37 Sanctions

, Court of Appeals , COA22-164 (Judge Richard Dietz) , Unpublished
Best Asset Grp. v. Rosa Jacobs

Interlocutory appeal; order granting motion to change venue for convenience of witnesses and to promote ends of justice; sufficiency of statement of grounds for appellate review; substantial right

, Court of Appeals , COA21-373 (Judge Donna Stroud) , Published
Eidson v. Kakouras

Child Support, substantial change of circumstances, stipulation, past-due support

, Court of Appeals , COA22-209 (Judge Darren Jackson) , Unpublished
Elliot Moore Hines v. Chelle C. Nichols

trial court's conclusions supported its determination that father have sole decision-making authority for educational needs of child but inconsistencies in the court's order that father pay for the child's education and inclusion of the expense in the child support award required remand

, Court of Appeals , COA22-543 (Judge Jefferson Griffin) , Published
Haidar v. Moore

N.C. Gen. Stat. 50C no-contact order, written findings of fact required

, Court of Appeals , COA22-67 (Judge Darren Jackson) , Unpublished
In re D.D.H.

trial court's findings were supported by competent evidence, and findings in turn supported court's adjudication of neglect and appointment of paternal grandparents as juvenile's guardian

, Court of Appeals , COA22-290 (Per Curiam) , Unpublished
In re G.L.P.

Termination of parental rights; neglect; sufficiency of findings to show likelihood of repetition of neglect; best interests determination; adequacy of findings on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110 criteria

, Court of Appeals , COA22-157 (Judge Donna Stroud) , Unpublished
In re H.S.

Juvenile delinquency, findings of fact, § 7B-2512, and § 7B-2501

, Court of Appeals , COA22-127 (Per Curiam) , Unpublished
In re N.G.L.

termination of parental rights, best interest of the child, guardian ad litem, dependent juvenile

, Court of Appeals , COA22-441 (Judge Darren Jackson) , Published
In re: B.S.

remand was required where trial court failed to conduct the statutorily required inquiry for a respondent in an involuntary commitment proceeding who chose to proceed pro se; court was required to inquire into the respondent's age, mental condition, education, and the extent to which the respondent understood the complexity of the case