Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate Father's parental rights. After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect and willful abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (7). On appeal, Father argued that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights because he was a nonresident and was not served with a summons. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction was properly invoked and that Father waived his insufficient service argument. View "In re A.L.I." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their minor child T.B., holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Parents' parental rights, concluding that four grounds alleged in the termination motion existed to terminate both Parents' parental rights and that it was in T.B.'s best interests to terminate Parents' rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error to the trial court's challenged findings of fact; (2) there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect as to Mother; and (3) the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights in the child was supported by competent evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re T.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this complex business dispute, holding that neither party successfully demonstrated a substantial right that had been affected or that an error likely occurred at the trial court.Plaintiff brought this complaint seeking a declaratory judgment setting forth his rights under an Employment Agreement and Level Four Holdings Agreements. Plaintiff also alleged claims for tortious interference with a contract against Penta Mezzanine SIBC Fund I, L.P. (Penta Fund), Seth Ellis, and Level Four SBIC Holdings. The trial court (1) determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim; (2) dismissed the tortious interference with contract claim against all defendants; and (3) denied motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction by Level Four Holdings and Ellis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "Button v. Level Four Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the superior court affirming the decision of the Board of Review for the North Carolina Department of Commerce adopting the decision of the appeals referee ruling that Frank Lennane was disqualified for unemployment benefits, holding that there was no error.At issue was whether Lennane's leaving work was attributable to his employer, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 96-14.5(a), to avoid disqualification for unemployment benefits. The lower courts affirmed the administrative decision that Lennane was disqualified for unemployment benefits because he failed to show good cause attributable to the employer for leaving. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while Lennane left work for good cause, he failed to satisfy his burden to show that his leaving work was "attributable to the employer" as a matter of law. View "In re Lennane" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals erred in concluding that more than 220,000 former State employees (the Retirees) possessed no vested rights within the meaning of the Contracts Clause to the benefit of lifetime enrollment in any particular premium-free health insurance plan, holding that the trial court correctly concluded that the Retirees had obtained a vested right protected under the Contracts Clause.After the General Assembly enacted a statute eliminating Retirees' option to remain enrolled in the plan of their choice, the Retirees argued that the State had undertaken a contractual obligation to provide them with the option to remain enrolled in the premium-free preferred provider organization health insurance plan that allocated eighty percent of the costs of health care services to the insurer and twenty percent to the insured for life. The trial court entered partial summary judgment for Retirees. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for summary judgment in favor of the State. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court correctly determined there were no genuine issues of material fact relating to whether Retirees possessed a vested right protected under the Contracts Clause. View "Lake v. State Health Plan for Teachers & State Employees" 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 for appropriate relief (MAR) and supplemental motion for appropriate relief (supplemental MAR) asserting that the indictment charging him with the offense of attempted robbery with a dangerous a dangerous weapon was fatally flawed, holding that the indictment was sufficient.Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and two robbery charges. The trial court denied both Defendant's MAR and supplemental MAR. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the indictment's description of the victims of Defendant's attempted robbery was insufficient because it did not name the person against whom the offense was directed with certitude. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the indictment comported with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-924(a)(5) and the current status of the law; and (2) therefore, the trial court had the necessary jurisdiction to enter judgment against Defendant pursuant to his guilty plea. View "State v. Oldroyd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the superior court (MAR court) granting Defendant's motion for appropriate relief (MAR) and awarding him a new trial, holding that the MAR court neither abused its discretion nor committed legal error in granting Defendant a new trial.Defendant was fourteen years old when he was indicted for and assaulting a cab driver who later died. Based largely on the basis of a confession Defendant made while being interrogated by a police detective outside the presence of a parent or guardian Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. Years later, Defendant filed a MAR alleging that he was entitled to relief based on the newly discovered evidence of the testimony of a man who claimed that, on the night of the crime, another person confessed to him to assaulting the cab driver. The MAR court allowed the MAR and vacated Defendant's conviction. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the MAR court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence all elements necessary to demonstrate his entitlement to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. View "State v. Reid" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that Defendant had failed to make the showing of materiality necessary to support an award of postconviction DNA testing, holding that there was no error.Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. After a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. The trial court denied Defendant's later request for postconviction DNA testing on the grounds that Defendant had failed to show that the requested testing would be material to his defense. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's guilty plea did not preclude him from seeking postconviction DNA testing under N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-269; and (2) the lower courts correctly concluded that Defendant failed to make the necessary showing of materiality. View "State v. Alexander" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon and his sentence of life imprisonment without parole, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err or deprive Defendant of the right to a "complete self-defense instruction" by failing to instruct the jury using the exact language in which N.C.P.I. – Crim. 308.10 is couched; and (2) the court of appeals correctly held that Defendant failed properly to preserve his challenge to the trial court's second alleged instructional error for purposes of appellate review. View "State v. Benner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the ruling of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Plaintiff's N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 50B domestic violence protective orders (DVPO) complaint, holding that the district court did not err in determining that it had subject matter jurisdiction to allow Plaintiff to proceed with her Chapter 50B DVPO action.Plaintiff struck through a notice of voluntary dismissal and wrote "I do not want to dismiss this action" on a notice of voluntary dismissal form that she had filed less than one hour before after learning that she could request a DVPO under Chapter 50B. The trial court concluded that the handwritten amendment could revive Plaintiff's previously dismissed complaint and therefore exercised jurisdiction over the subsequent hearing. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Plaintiff's Chapter 50B complaint and remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed, holding that the trial court had proper jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's DVPO complaint and motions where Plaintiff's amended form served as a functional Rule 60(b) motion for equitable relief from her mistaken dismissal, and the court of appeals did not err in determining the same. View "M.E. v. T.J" on Justia Law