Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants' motion for an award of attorneys' fees as part of their costs under N.C. R. Civ. P. 41(d) pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 6-21.5 and the trial court's subsequent order awarding $599,262 in attorneys' fees as costs, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.Plaintiffs, limited partners of the Fayetteville Ambulatory Surgery Center Limited Partnership (FASC), asserted five claims against Cape Fear Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC and its owner, Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc. Plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. Defendants subsequently brought a motion for fees. The trial court granted the motion for attorneys' fees as part of Defendants' costs under Rule 41(d) pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 6-21.5. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion granting the motion for attorneys' fees. View "Woodcock v. Cumberland County System, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part an order of the court of appeals in this jurisdictional dispute, holding that the Corporate Defendants intentionally reached out to North Carolina to conduct business activities in the state, and the claims at issue in this case arose from or were related to those activities.After Plaintiff was officially terminated from his employment he brought an action against Individual and Corporate Defendants alleging, inter alia, fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss the action. The trial court denied the motions. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Corporate Defendants' activities alone were not sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction and that Plaintiff's claims did not arise out of, or even relate to, the alleged contacts between Defendants and North Carolina. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision as to Corporate Defendants, affirmed with respect to Individual Defendants, and remanded, holding that the trial court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Corporate Defendants pursuant to the Due Process Clause. View "Schaeffer v. SingleCare Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's adjudications of nine-year-old Margaret as an abused and neglected juvenile and her two younger siblings as neglected juveniles, holding that the trial court's order contained sufficient findings, supported by clear cogent, and convincing evidence, supporting the court's adjudications of Margaret and her siblings.In reversing the trial court's adjudications, the court of appeals held that the trial court improperly admitted some hearsay evidence and that the trial court's reasoning was so "reliant and intertwined with" the hearsay evidence that the proper remedy was to vacate the trial court's order. The Supreme Court reversed after reaffirming the proper role of an appellate court in reviewing a trial court's adjudication and disposition in a juvenile proceeding, holding that the court of appeals erred by vacating or reversing the trial court's adjudications because the court properly adjudicated Margaret as an abused and neglected juvenile and properly adjudicated her siblings as neglected juveniles. View "In re A.J.L.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals vacating the judgment of the superior court sentencing Defendant at the Class B1 felony level in connection with his conviction of second-degree murder, holding that the trial court properly sentenced Defendant at the Class B1 level.In 2019, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. At issue was whether Defendant should have been sentenced at the lower Class B2 felony level given the jury's conclusion that Defendant acted, in part, with depraved-heart malice. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's sentence, holding that, under the circumstances, the jury's completed verdict form was not ambiguous, and Defendant was properly sentenced at the Class B2 level. View "State v. Borum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals vacating the judgment of the superior court sentencing Defendant at the Class B1 felony level in connection with his conviction of second-degree murder, holding that the trial court properly sentenced Defendant at the Class B1 level.In 2019, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. At issue was whether Defendant should have been sentenced at the lower Class B2 felony level given the jury's conclusion that Defendant acted, in part, with depraved-heart malice. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's sentence, holding that, under the circumstances, the jury's completed verdict form was not ambiguous, and Defendant was properly sentenced at the Class B1 level. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that there was no violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), in the underlying proceedings, holding that the trial court's decision that there was no Batson violation was not clearly erroneous.After Defendant was convicted, the Supreme Court remanded this case to the trial court to conduct further proceedings under Batson. On remand, the trial court conducted a hearing, made extensive findings of fact, and concluded that there was no Batson violation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusions were not clearly erroneous. View "State v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals that Respondent's due process rights were not violated in the proceedings which led to the trial court's conclusion that Respondent had a mental illness and was dangerous to himself, holding that there was no error.At the end of a hearing, the trial court concluded that Respondent had a mental illness and was a danger to himself and entering a thirty-day commitment order. At issue was whether the trial court, in the absence of counsel for the state, called witnesses and elicited testimony during the hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not violate Respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal. View "In re J.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that the trial court complied with the procedure implemented in N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1201(d)(1) by the legislature for the trial court to consent to Defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial for the status offense of habitual felon, holding that the court of appeals did not err.After a colloquy on the record, in which Defendant gave notice in open court of his waiver of a jury trial, the trial court proceeded with a bench trial and found Defendant guilty of multiple drug-related offenses. Before the court proceeded with the phase of the trial addressing the habitual felon status offense, Defendant signed and acknowledged under oath another waiver of jury trial form. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in how it personally addressed him and in determining that he fully understood and appreciated the consequences of his decision to waive the right to trial by jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that that the court of appeals did not err by concluding that the trial court complied with the procedure set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1201(d)(1) for the court to consent to Defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial for the habitual felon offense. View "State v. Rollinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the court of appeals' decision affirming in part and dismissing in part the judgment of the trial court determining that Insurers were obligated to defend and indemnify Radiator Specialty Company (RSC) under its policies by reimbursing $1.8 million of RSC's past costs, holding that the court erred in part.RSC sought compensation from the three insurers (Insurers) remaining in this action for liabilities it incurred as a result of litigation occasioned by bodily injury caused by repeated exposure to benzene, which RSC manufactured. At issue was which insurers were obligated to pay which costs arising from RSC's benzene liabilities pursuant to the terms of the Insurers' liability insurance policies. The Supreme Court held that the trial court (1) correctly applied an exposure-based approach in determining at what point Insurers' coverage was triggered; (2) properly applied pro rata allocation based on the policies; and (3) in finding that horizontal exhaustion - rather than vertical exhaustion - applied to one insurer's duty to defend. View "Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding that Senate Bill 824 (S.B. 824), the statute enacted to require that every voter present one of a few specific forms of photo identification, was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by competent evidence showing that the statute was motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose.In challenging S.B. 824, Plaintiffs alleged that the law was enacted at least in part with the intent to discriminate against African-American voters. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's finding that S.B. 824 was motivated by racial discrimination was supported by competent evidence in the record; and (2) the trial court correctly applied the factors set forth in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) when it found that the law was enacted at least in part with racially discriminatory intent. View "Holmes v. Moore" on Justia Law