Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights in their twin sons, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights on the grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6), and that it was in the children's best interests for Parents' parental rights to be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that Parents' parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(3) and that the termination of Parents' parental rights would be in the children's best interests. View "In re J.C.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his three children, holding that the findings supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3) to terminate Father's parental rights.Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that three grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights for neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, and failure to pay for a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the juveniles. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3). The trial court further concluded that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that grounds existed pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(3) to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re M.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children and an order terminating Father's parental rights to one of those children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated the existence of grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights to her children pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and (6) and the existence of grounds to terminate Father's parental rights to his child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), (6), and (7). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting an inquiry into Mother's competency; (2) the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law supported its adjudication of grounds to terminate Father's parental rights for willful abandonment; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it was in the child's best interests to terminate both parents' parental rights. View "In re J.A.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights, holding that a substitute judge may not make new factual findings or conclusions of law under Rule 52 and Rule 63 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.After the district court terminated Father's parental rights to his child the Supreme Court vacated the order and remanded the case for additional findings of fact. On remand, the matter was assigned to a substitute judge, who issued a new order finding that the child was neglected and terminating Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter for a new hearing, holding that the substitute judge lacked authority to make new, dispositive findings of fact under Rule 52. View "In re K.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by competent evidence and that Defendant's search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.Following the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress Defendant pleaded guilty to various drug offenses. The court of appeals vacated the convictions, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) competent evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact; (2) Defendant was lawfully detained pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) and State v. Williams, 490 S.E.2d 583 (N.C. 1997); and (3) the frisk of Defendant was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. View "State v. Tripp" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the termination order was properly entered pursuant to Rules 52 and 53 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.The trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights in her child based on an adjudication of grounds under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(6) and (9) and a determination that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the order was supported by the presumption of regularity, which Mother failed to rebut, as well as an unchallenged finding of fact. View "In re E.D.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction this breach of contract matter, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.Plaintiff, which was based in Durham, North Carolina, brought this action against Defendant, a California company, after Defendant allegedly refused to pay certain fees as required by the parties' agreement and terminated the agreement without cause. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Defendant had the requisite minimum contacts with the forum. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the maintenance of this suit did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. View "Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. Smart & Final Stores LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in this negligence action, holding that the court of appeals erred.Plaintiffs, an elderly infirm couple, sued Defendant for negligence and punitive damages, alleging that they hired Defendant as their in-home health provider and that Defendant negligently assigned a certain personal care aide to them, and that aide was a proximate cause of suspected thefts from their home and the resulting injuries they sustained. The jury found that Plaintiffs were entitled to $750,000 in damages from Defendant for their personal injuries. The trial court denied Defendant's ensuing motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The court of appeals reversed and remanded for the entry of JNOV in Defendant's favor. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence for each element of the claim; and (2) the court of appeals erred by holding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's requested instructions. View "Keith v. Health-Pro Home Care Services Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to three of her minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.The Department of Social Services moved to terminate Mother's parental rights to the three juveniles on the grounds of neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, willful failure to pay for the cost of care for the juveniles, and abandonment. The trial court concluded that grounds existed for termination pursuant to each of the grounds alleged and that it was in the juveniles' best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's amended termination order was entered without jurisdiction, but the findings of fact in the trial court's original order supported the adjudication on the ground of neglect; and (2) Mother failed to show prejudice from any alleged error by her trial counsel. View "In re B.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that Defendant's sentence violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, holding that it violates both the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and N.C. Const. art. I, 27 to sentence a juvenile homicide officer who has been determined to be neither incorrigible nor irredeemable to life without parole.Defendant was seventeen years old when he was indicted for participating in murders. Defendant pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and ordered to serve two consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of parole. After the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the trial court expressly found that Defendant was "neither incorrigible nor irredeemable" but nevertheless ordered him to serve two consecutive sentences of life with the possibility of parole. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Defendant's sentence was a de facto sentence of life without parole under article I, section 27; and (2) because Defendant was found to be neither incorrigible nor irredeemable, his sentence was unconstitutional. View "State v. Kelliher" on Justia Law