Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court compelling discovery pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P. 37, holding that the trial court was not required to make findings of fact to support its ruling.Plaintiff brought an action for wrongful death against the defendants from which the decedent sought medical care. At issue was Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants to comply with an existing discovery order. The trial court granted the motion but did not make specific findings of fact. The court of appeals remanded the case for the trial court to enter factual findings and conclusions of law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendants did not specifically request findings of fact regarding the statutory elements set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-21.22A; and (2) in the absence of such a request, the trial court was not required to make any findings of fact in resolving Plaintiff's motion to compel. View "Williams v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed portions of the court of appeals' opinion that found error in certain portions of the trial court's order eliminating reunification as a permanent plan and ceasing further review hearings in a neglect and dependency case concerning Mother's child, holding the trial court did not err.The trial court entered the order eliminating reunification as a permanent plan only after it found that an alternate permanent plan of custody with a court-approved caretaker had been achieved and after the court had received evidence showing that the court-approved caretakers understood the legal significance of the child's placement in their home. The court of appeals vacated the order and remanded the case. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals erred in determining that the trial court erred in ceasing reunification efforts and in failing to fulfill its statutory obligations concerning verification. View "In re K.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court determining that Defendant's behavior was sufficiently egregious to warrant the forfeiture of her right to counsel, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial.Defendant was charged with attempting to possess a firearm while subject to an ex parte Domestic Violence Protection Order prohibiting the same. After a trial, at which Defendant proceeded pro se, the jury found Defendant guilty. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court of appeals erred in holding that Defendant waived her right to counsel or alternatively forfeited her right to counsel. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding (1) the issue of waiver was inapposite because Defendant expressly requested the appointment of counsel; and (2) the trial court erred in its alternate determination that Defendant's behavior was sufficiently egregious to warrant the forfeiture of the right to counsel. View "State v. Atwell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and holding that eight of nine restrictive covenants governing Plaintiffs' lots within the parties' residential subdivision were extinguished by operation of North Carolina's Real Property Marketable Title Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 47B-1 to 47B-9, holding that the eight covenants were extinguished by operation of law.At issue on appeal was whether the court of appeals correctly determined that the Act's thirteenth enumerated exception did not apply to save all of the nine restrictive covenants in question. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly held that all but one of the restrictive covenants, as applied to Plaintiffs' property, were to be extinguished under the Act; and (2) a plain reading of section 47B-3(13) exempts from extinguishment only those covenants that actually require that a property be used residentially within the confines of a general or uniform scheme of development. View "C Investments 2, LLC v. Auger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court permitting Father's court-appointed counsel to withdraw from representing Father in the case proceedings and the trial court's order ceasing efforts to reunify Father with his son (Child), holding that remand was required for additional proceedings.The Chowan County Department of Social Services (DSS) petitioned to terminate Father's parental rights to Child on multiple grounds. Father was granted the same attorney for the termination of parental rights matter as had been allowed to withdraw at an earlier hearing. Thereafter, trial court terminated Father's parental rights, concluding that all four of the alleged grounds of the termination existed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in allowing Father's counsel to withdraw from representation without proper notice evidence in the record of the attorney's intent to withdraw and without making further inquiry into the circumstances regarding the motion. View "In re L.Z.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's judgments revoking Defendant's probation entered more than one year after Defendant's term of probation had expired, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.The trial court concluded that good cause existed to revoke Defendant's probation despite the expiration of his probationary period. Defendant appealed, arguing that the "good cause" found by the trial court failed as a matter of law to satisfy N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1344(f)(3). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) possessed the jurisdiction to revoke Defendant's probation after his term of probation had expired; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in determining that good cause existed for the revocation of Defendant's probation after his term of probation had expired. View "State v. Geter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the Industrial Commission denying the Department's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims arising from certain regulatory actions taken by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services in response to deficiencies that Department employees had identified during inspections of Plaintiffs' facility, holding that the Commission erred in failing to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.Plaintiffs, an adult care home and its owner, contested the Department's regulatory actions by initiating a contested case before the Office of Administrative Hearings. The parties settled. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a claim with the Commission pursuant to the North Carolina State Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence. The Department filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Commission denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs' claims were barred by sovereign immunity; and (2) Plaintiffs failed to assert a viable negligence claim against the Department. View "Cedarbrook Residential Center, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that the trial court did not commit plain error by allowing the admission of testimony describing certain information provided by the State's principal witness as "rock solid", holding that the admission of the challenged portion of the testimony did not constitute plain error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and first-degree burglary. The court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals upholding the convictions, holding that the challenged portion of the testimony was inadmissible, but it was not reasonably probable that Defendant would have been acquitted had the challenged portion of the testimony not been admitted. View "State v. Caballero" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that the proceedings below did not result in a due process violation but reversed the court of appeals' decision to affirm the order of the trial court to have Respondent involuntarily committed, holding that the record evidence and the trial court's findings did not support that determination.The State filed a petition to have Respondent involuntarily committed for additional inpatient treatment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 122C-261 et seq. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the court of appeals properly found that there was no due process violation in the proceedings below; but (2) the trial court's findings could not be deemed sufficient to support a determination that Respondent posed a danger to himself given its failure to find a reasonable probability of Respondent suffering serious physical debilitation within the near future without immediate, involuntary commitment. View "In re C.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing one of Defendant's convictions for first-degree kidnapping for lack of sufficient evidence, holding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the second first-degree kidnapping charge.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the second of two first-degree kidnapping charges for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a first-degree rape because the evidence showed that one of the alleged kidnappings had occurred after the commission of the rape had concluded. The court of appeals agreed and reversed the second of Defendant's first-degree kidnapping convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence did not support a finding that Defendant had committed the second first-degree kidnapping charge. View "State v. Elder" on Justia Law