Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her minor child, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court for that the grounds for termination alleged in the termination petition filed by the Department of Social Services existed and that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's properly supported findings demonstrated that Mother's parental rights in the child were subject to termination on the basis of neglect. View "In re M.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the district court concluding that Plaintiff was entitled to "reasonable attorney's fees" on appeal from a decision of the magistrate in Plaintiff's favor, holding that there was no error.The trial court awarded the attorney's fees at issue in this action seeking the recovery of money Defendant owed Plaintiff under a contract to purchase real estate that obligated Defendant, the buyer, to pay Plaintiff, the seller, a due diligence fee and an earnest money deposit. The court of appeals affirmed the attorney's fee award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's allegations of error were unavailing. View "Reynolds-Douglass v. Terhark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the North Carolina Utilities Commission addressing Dominion Energy North Carolina's application for a general increase in its North Carolina retail rates, holding that Dominion's challenges to the Commission's order were unavailing.In the order at issue, the Commission authorized Dominion to calculate its North Carolina retail rates by, inter alia, amortizing certain costs. Dominion appealed, arguing that the Commission acted capriciously and arbitrarily in failing to follow applicable precedent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission's order was supported by competent, substantial evidence and that the Commission adequately explained the basis for the portions of its decision that Dominion challenged on appeal. View "State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Virginia Electric & Power Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss and vacating the judgment entered in the superior court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon on the grounds that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss.Defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him at the close of the State's evidence and then again at the close of the evidence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was guilty. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss and sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without parole. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that substantial evidence supported the reasonable inference that Defendant murdered the victim and took $3,000. View "State v. Dover" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the orders of the trial court denying Mother's petitions to terminate the parental rights of Father to the parties' two children, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to support the denial of the termination petitions.Mother filed petitions to terminate Father's parental rights in the children, alleging that Father had willfully failed to pay for the support of the children and had abandoned and neglected the children. The trial court denied the petitions to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's orders, holding that the trial court's findings of fact did not permit meaningful appellate review and were thus insufficient to support the trial court's denial of the termination petitions. View "In re B.F.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals dismissing Defendant's appeal of his conviction for two counts of manufacturing methamphetamine, holding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant filed two motions to suppress evidence obtained during two searches of Defendants home in 2014 and 2015. Both motions were denied. Defendant appealed, but the court of appeals dismissed the appeal and denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of State v. Ledbetter, 371 N.C. 192 (2018) and State v. Stubbs, 368 N.C. 40 (2015). On remand, the court of appeals again denied the petition, indicating that Defendant's failure to provide timely notice of his intent to appeal was fatal to his petition. The Supreme Court vacated the decision below, holding that the court of appeals had the jurisdiction and authority to issue the writ of certiorari. View "State v. Killette" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to Belmont Association, Inc. on its claim for injunctive relief and dismissing Defendants' first counterclaim for declaratory judgment, holding that the court of appeals erred in its interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 22B-20.In its order, the trial court ruled that section 22B-20(d) applied to this action involving a binding agreement that runs with the land that would prohibit the location of solar collectors as described in section 22B-20(b) and that section 22B-20(c) was not applicable. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither subsection (d) nor (c) of the statute applied and that the restriction at issue violated section 22B-20(b). View "Belmont Ass'n v. Farwig" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the trial court's planning order in this case and remanding the case for additional findings, holding that the court of appeals did not err in concluding that Father waived his constitutional argument.After a hearing, the trial court granted guardianship of Father's two children, Jimmy and Lola, to the maternal grandparents. The court of appeals vacated the trial court's permanency planning order, holding that the trial court erred by failing to make necessary findings under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-906.1(n) but that Father had waived his argument that the trial court erred by granting guardianship without concluding beforehand that Father was an unfit parent or had acted inconsistently with his constitutional right to parent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father's unpreserved constitutional arguments were waived on appeal. View "In re J.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her son, Scott, holding that the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Scott's best interests.After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated that grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights to Scott under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's dispositional findings were supported by competent evidence; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it was in Scott's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. View "In re S.D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, Lucy and Joseph, holding that there was no error.Petitioners, court-appointed custodians of the two juveniles, filed petition to terminate Parents' parental rights on the grounds of willful abandonment. The trial court eventually entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights to Lucy and Joseph, finding that Mother had willfully abandoned the children and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motion to continue. View "In re L.A.J." on Justia Law