Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court allowing certain districting maps to stand, holding that the enacted maps violated several rights guaranteed to the people by the North Carolina Constitution.The General Assembly enacted districting maps for the United States Congress, the North Carolina House of Representatives, and the North Carolina Senate that "subordinated traditional neutral redistricting criteria in favor of significant partisan advantage by diluting the power of certain people's votes." The trial court denied Plaintiffs' claims, concluding as a matter of law that claims of extreme partisan gerrymandering present purely political questions that are nonjusticiable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs' partisan gerrymandering claims were justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution; and (2) the maps failed strict scrutiny and must be rejected. View "Harper v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the trial court concluding that Plaintiff's claims were beyond the scope of the North Carolina Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices Act, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that Defendants, acting individually and corporately, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in and affecting commerce, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1, et seq. The trial court determined that Defendants had violated the Act and awarded treble damages. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the conduct at issue was not "in or affecting commerce." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the conduct was not "in or affecting commerce" for purposes of the Act, and moreover, Plaintiff was not a market participant protected under the Act. View "Nobel v. Foxmoor Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her minor child, holding that Mother was not entitled to her allegations of error.The Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights in Galena, alleging that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)91), (2) and (6). The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to each of the grounds DSS had alleged and concluded that it was in Galena's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's determination that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights for neglect pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) was supported by the unchallenged findings of fact. View "In re G.D.C.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the trial court finding that the evidence presented was sufficient to support an adjudication of dependency but dismissing a claim of neglect, holding that the court of appeals' analysis showed improper deference to the trial court's conclusion of law.The Cumberland County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a juvenile petition alleging Kelly to be a neglected and dependent juvenile. The trial court adjudicated Kelly to be dependent but, without explanation, dismissed the claim of neglect. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claim of neglect. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in part, holding that the court of appeals failed to conduct a proper de novo review of the issue of neglect. View "In re K.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, Carrie, and the trial court's earlier permanency-planning order that eliminated reunification from Carrie's permanent plan, holding that there was no reversible error.On appeal, Mother did not challenge the trial court's conclusions that grounds existed to terminate her parental rights or that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by denying Mother's motion to continue the termination hearing; (2) did not reversibly err in failing to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act because there was no reason for the court to know that Carrier was an Indian child under 25 C.F.R. 23.107(c); and (3) did not abuse its discretion by eliminating Mother's visitation with Carrie in a permanency-planning order. View "In re C.C.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing in part and vacating in part Defendant's convictions for insufficient evidence, holding that the court of appeals erred.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of violating a civil domestic violence protective order while in possession of a deadly weapon, felonious breaking or entering, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault on a female. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's convictions for violation of a protective order and felonious breaking or entering for insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred. View "State v. Tucker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder, felonious speeding to elude arrest, and robbery with a dangerous weapon, holding that Defendant was disqualified from claiming the justification of self-defense.At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Defendant could not claim self-defense to justify his use of deadly force because he was also convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court held (1) N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-51.4, the stand your ground law, requires the State to prove an immediate causal nexus between a defendant's attempt to commit, commission of, or escape after the commission of the felony and the circumstances giving rise to the defendant's perceived need to use force; (2) because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on this causal nexus requirement, the jury instructions were erroneous, but the error was not prejudicial; and (3) under section 14-51.4(1), Defendant was disqualified from claiming the justification of self-defense. View "State v. McLymore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court concluding that Defendant had committed the revocable probation violation of absconding, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Defendant's probation upon concluding that Defendant had absconded his probation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the probation violation reports sufficiently alleged that Defendant absconded supervision; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to revoke Defendant's probation and to activate his suspended sentences upon Defendant admitting that he committed the revocable violation of absconding probation. View "State v. Crompton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to Alice, a minor child, holding that the issues identified by Father's counsel as arguably supporting an appeal were meritless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in deciding to discontinue reunification efforts; (2) the evidence and findings of fact supported the trial court's determination that grounds existed to substantiate the termination of Father's parental rights to Alice; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it would be in Alice's best interests for Father's parental rights to be terminated. View "In re A.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court that terminated the parental rights of Father to Ronnie, a minor child, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court concluded that two grounds for termination existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) at least one of the grounds found by the trial court for the termination of Father's parental rights was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the child's best interests would be served by the termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re J.R.F." on Justia Law