Whether the trial court erred in concluding that grounds existed to terminate the parental rights of a severely mentally ill mother.

Must an order terminating parental rights expressly state that findings were based on 'clear, cogent, and convincing evidence' if the trial court so states in open court.

Review of recommendation for public reprimand by the Judicial Standards Commission.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals holding that the trial court erred by: (1) denying the juvenile's motion to dismiss second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor; (2) denying the juvenile's motion to dismiss first-degree forcible sexual offense; (3) allowing the admission of codefendants' statements; (4) entering a Level 3 disposition; and (5) denying the juvenile's motion for release while his appeal was pending.

Appeal from order terminating parental rights under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1); whether there was likelihood of a repetition of neglect to support termination on grounds of neglect; whether the trial court erred in its best interests determination.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing counsel to withdraw; whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct the necessary inquiry prior to allowing respondent-mother to proceed in a termination proceeding pro se following counsel's withdrawal.

Review of recommendation for censure.

Appeal from order dismissing petition to terminate parental rights; admissibility of the guardian ad litem's opinion regarding best interests of the child; right to cross-examine a witness at disposition stage; reversible error in dispositional findings of fact.

Termination of parental rights for grounds stated in N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2); sufficiency of performance of respondent's guardian ad litem appointed under N.C.G.S. 1A-1, Rule 17 and N.C.G.S. 7B-1101.1(d).

Interpretation of insurance policy; summary judgment; residents of the same household.

Whether the trial court erred by allowing defendants' motion under N.C.G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(c) and Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress; whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the order of the superior court allowing defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Whether a patient failed to show, more likely than not, that physician's negligence caused her diminished neurological function, and whether patient's 'loss of chance' at a better result following a stroke was not a separate type of injury for which she could recover in medical malpractice negligence action.

Defendant, convicted of first-degree murder, argues in a postconviction proceeding that the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence.

Whether a trial court lacked discretion to reject defendant's plea pursuant to N.C.G.S. 15A-1023(c); whether defendant's arguments regarding the guilty plea were automatically preserved for appellate review.

Whether the trial court committed reversible error by restricting defendant's questioning of prospective jurors during voir dire.

Whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion to dismiss; whether the State violated defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial under Barker v. Wingo.

Appeal from the judgment of the trial court after a jury returned a guilty verdict on charges of possession of various controlled substances; whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the trial court did not commit error when it instructed the jury on the theory of possession of controlled substances by 'acting in concert' based on the evidence presented at trial.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court violated defendant's due-process rights by failing to conduct a competency hearing prior to or during defendant's trial.

Whether defendant's due process rights were violated when the trial court determined that she was voluntarily absent from the proceedings without first conducting a competency hearing.

Whether hands and arms can serve as a deadly weapon for purposes of the felony-murder rule; Whether the trial court's erroneous instruction that a garden hoe could serve as a deadly weapon for purposes of the felony-murder rule constituted prejudicial error.