Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court entering an order removing reunification with Parents from the permanent plan as to their two children, holding that competent evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact, and those findings sustained the trial court's conclusions of law.The Catawba County Department of Social Services filed a juvenile petition alleging that Parents' infant daughter had been abused and that both she and Parents' son were neglected. The court adjudicated the daughter as both abused and neglected and the son as neglected. An ensuing permanency planning order made reunification the primary plan. Given the severity of the daughter's injuries and that neither parent had acknowledged responsibility for the injuries, however, the court modified the permanent plan, eliminating reunification from the plan and specifying a primary plan of adoption. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the evidence on the record supported the trial court's findings of fact, which supported the conclusions of law in the permanency planning order; and (2) the court of appeals addressed a constitutional issue that was not preserved for appellate review. View "In re J.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that, within the particular facts and overall context of this criminal case, the trial court did not violate either the United States Constitution or the North Carolina General Statutes by declining to conduct further inquiry into Defendant's capacity to proceed following his apparent suicide attempt on the morning of the sixth day of trial.Defendant's suicide attempt occurred before the jury was given its instructions but after the jury had heard closing arguments from both sides. To determine whether Defendant had forfeited his right to be present for the trial's ongoing proceedings the trial court received evidence concerning his medical history and state of mind at the time of his apparent suicide attempt. The court ultimately concluded that Defendant's injuries were entirely caused by his own voluntary actions, and therefore, Defendant had voluntarily absented himself from the trial proceedings. The trial was continued in his absence, and the trial court entered judgments against Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not erroneously decline to make further inquiry into Defendant's capacity to proceed during the trial proceedings. View "State v. Flow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the final order and judgment of the trial court in this case involving challenges to N.C. Gen. Stat. 13-1, the statute setting forth the criteria that felons must satisfy to be eligible for re-enfranchisement, holding that the trial court erred in entering an order allowing all felons not in jail or prison to register and vote.Nearly fifty years after the legislature rewrote section 13-1 to make re-enfranchisement automatic for all eligible felons Plaintiffs brought this action challenging the requirement that felons complete their probation, parole, or post-release supervision before they regain their voting rights. Plaintiffs alleged that this requirement was intended to discriminate African Americans. The trial court ruled for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove that legislators intended their reforms to section 13-1 to disadvantage African Americans; and (2) Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their other constitutional claims. View "Community Success Initiative v. Moore" on Justia Law

In this case requiring a determination of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's scope of authority under an easement it acquired to create Lake Norman, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing an order of the superior court, holding that the easement's plain language was clear and unambiguous and that Duke's actions were encompassed with the easement's broad grant of authority.In 1961, Duke purchased the easement at issue, which covered a tract of what is now known as Lake Norman. In 2017, after the lake level receded, Duke filed suit against Defendants alleging trespass and wrongful interference with the easement by building a retaining wall and backfilling the lakebed area subject to Duke's easement. The trial court ordered Defendants to remove the retaining wall and clear the backfilled area from the lakebed and then granted summary judgment for Duke on its remaining trespass claim. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Duke acted within its broad authority under the easement and that the trial court did not err. View "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. Kiser" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present a political question that is nonjusticiable under the North Carolina Constitution, thus overruling the Court's decision in Harper I and affirming the court of appeals' decision dismissing all of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.Plaintiffs brought an action alleging that legislative and congressional redistricting plans drawn by the General Assembly in 2021 and then on remand in 2022 are partisan gerrymanders in violation of specific provisions of the North Carolina Constitution. On rehearing, the Supreme Court held (1) this Court's previous holding in Harper v. Hall, 868 S.E.2d 499, 551 (N.C. 2022) that partisan gerrymandering presents a justiciable claim is overruled, and this Court's opinion in Harper v. Hall, 881 S.E.2d 156, 162 (N.C. 2022) is withdrawn and superseded by this opinion; and (2) the court of appeals correctly concluded that partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable, political questions and dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. View "Harper v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals determining that provisions in the settlement agreement in this case were ambiguous, holding that the plain language of the settlement agreement was unambiguous.After Defendant and Melissa Galloway Snell executed a memorandum of mediated settlement agreement a judgment a divorce was granted to the parties. At issue was a life insurance policy on Melissa's life that listed the Melissa Galloway Snell Living Trust as the policy's beneficiary. The parties' four children were beneficiaries of the trust. When Defendant claimed that he was entitled to the proceeds from Melissa's policy the trust brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment. The trial court granted the trustee's motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the relevant language of the settlement agreement was ambiguous. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred by concluding that the settlement agreement was ambiguous. View "Galloway v. Snell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the court of appeals affirming the denial of a petition to terminate Father's parental rights and clarified the correct standard of review at the adjudication and dispositional stage, holding that there were no grounds to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (4), or (7).Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights, alleging that grounds for termination existed under section 7B-1111(a0(1), (4), and (7). In denying the petition, the trial court found that Father made an effort to have a relationship with his child but was blocked from doing so, that the child was not neglected, and that Father had not willfully abandoned the child. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the trial court did not err in concluding that the grounds necessary to terminate Defendant's parental rights did not exist; and (2) the court of appeals' decision is modified to the extent it could be read to be applying an abuse of discretion, rather than a clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, standard of review at the adjudicatory stage of the proceeding. View "In re S.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the orders of the trial court dismissing Mother's terminating MOther's parental rights, holding that the trial court did not err.After a hearing, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights. The court of appeals remanded the case for a new hearing, citing its concerns about the fundamental fairness offered to Mother before the trial court dismissed her provisional counsel. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) the trial court complied with the legislature's enactments concerning provisional counsel under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1108.1(a)(1) and properly considered at the pretrial hearings the issues listed in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1101.1(a)(1); and (2) therefore, the court of appeals erred by reversing the judgment of the trial court. View "In re R.A.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court in this termination of parental rights case, holding that any error was harmless.The trial court in this case referenced a timeline introduced into evidence and expressly relied on that timeline, which the court found to be "credible and reliable," in determining that grounds existed to terminate Respondent's parental rights for willful failure to make reasonable progress under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the trial court's findings of fact were proper because the trial court did not merely accept and rely upon the timeline but expressly evaluated whether the timeline was credible and reliable; (2) there was no error in the trial court's disposition order; and (3) if the trial court erred by permitting an amendment that added an additional ground for termination, the error was harmless. View "In re H.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that S.B. 824 violates N.C. Const. art. I, 19 and permanently enjoining that law, holding that S.B. 824 does not violate the protections set forth in Article I, Section 19.Pursuant to S.B. 824, registered voters are required to present one of several acceptable forms of identification prior to casting a ballot and require the State to provide free voters identification cards to any registered voter. At issue was whether North Carolina's photo identification statute is constitutional. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin implementation and enforcement of S.B. 824. The trial court denied the injunction. The court of appeals reversed, holding that S.B. 824 violates Article I, Section 19 because it was enacted with discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that S.B. 824 was enacted with discriminatory intent or actually produces a "meaningful disparate impact along racial lines." View "Holmes v. Moore" on Justia Law