Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's orders on defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.

Whether the Court of Appeals properly held that a municipality waived governmental immunity because the complaint sufficiently plead waiver, and whether summary judgment was properly awarded for a municipality and a police officer on claims brought under N.C.G.S. 20-145.

Whether plaintiff demonstrated genuine issues of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment on claims that defendant North Carolina Department Health and Human Services arbitrarily and capriciously placed plaintiff on Medicaid prepayment review in violation of its state constitutional substantive due process and equal protection rights.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the trial court's order adjudicating as neglected and dependent a child whose father abandoned his pursuit of her after she ran across a busy road.

Review of recommendation for suspension.

Whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper legal test to determine whether a medical treatment is directly related to a compensable injury in a workers' compensation case.

Whether an underinsured motorist coverage claimant who owned the at fault vehicle but was not the tortfeasor may stack multiple underinsured motorist coverage policies inter policy when determining whether his vehicle is an underinsured highway vehicle under N.C.G.S. 20 279.21(b)(4).

Whether a lawsuit filed against the insured triggers a duty to defend because it concerns an 'advertising injury' under the terms of an excess policy of insurance issued by the insurance company and whether exclusions apply.

Whether moving to claim exempt property after entry of a judgment without raising a defense of insufficient service of process is a general appearance in the underlying action that waives objections to personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of service of process.

Whether historical preservation group's complaint against the City of Asheville was sufficient to survive dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation hearings.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by not placing the burden on the defendant to prove he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a house.

Whether the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for appropriate relief.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by certifying a class.

Whether plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known of their injuries and defendant's alleged fraud such that the statute of limitations was not tolled and plaintiffs' claims are time barred.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing an entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claims of common law negligence, negligence per se, violation of the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act, and breach of the implied warranty of habitability.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that defendant's compulsory counterclaim for injuries sustained in an automobile accident was barred by the statute of limitations established in N.C.G.S. 1-52(16).

Whether a plaintiff may pursue a direct constitutional claim under the North Carolina Constitution against state actors for monetary damages in response to a violation of his right to a speedy trial.