Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to L.M.M., holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7).Petitioners sought to terminate Father's parental rights, alleging the grounds of neglect, dependency, and willful abandonment. The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based upon neglect and willful abandonment and determined that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly terminated Father's parental rights. View "In re L.M.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify three classes for a class action lawsuit, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.Plaintiffs were former tenants of residential apartments owned and managed by Defendant. Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act. Plaintiffs moved to certify three class of certain fellow tenants, and the trial court granted the motion as to all three classes. Defendant appealed, pointing to three alleged errors in the trial court's class certification order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the three classes for a class action lawsuit. View "McMillan v. Blue Ridge Cos." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's motion to dismiss the charges against him based for vindictive prosecution and failure to join, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that the presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness was warranted and in holding that the trial court should have dismissed the charges under State v. Warren, 313 N.C. 254 (1985).Defendant was charged with fourteen counts of felony child abuse. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the charges amounted to vindictive prosecution and that the State impermissibly failed to join the charges in an earlier prosecution. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed based on prosecutorial vindictiveness and failure to join. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) no presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness was warranted; and (2) the court of appeals erred in finding a joinder violation. View "State v. Schalow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a hearing, the trial court found that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect and a willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care and that it was in the child's best interest to terminate Mother's parental rights. Mother appealed, and Mother's counsel filed a no-merit brief on her behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based upon proper legal bounds. View "In re K.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed to terminate her parental rights based on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 1111(a)(1)-(2). The trial court further concluded that it would be in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the order terminating Mother's parental rights was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re N.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his child, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights based on dependency and willful abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 1111(a)(6) and (7). The court further concluded that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings of fact supported the trial court's determination that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights in his child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). View "In re A.A.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights to his child, finding that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (7). Father appealed, and his counsel filed a no-merit brief on Father's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in determining that grounds existed to support the termination of Father's parental rights to his child; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it would be in the child's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re I.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her three minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (3) and that terminating Mother's parental rights was in each of the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3) to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re J.K.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her daughter, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a termination of parental rights proceeding, the trial court entered an order concluding that Mother's parental rights in her daughter were subject to termination on the basis of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2) and (6) and that the termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by finding that Mother's parental rights in the child were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). View "In re I.E.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Father and Mother in their minor children J.V., E.V., and A.V. and terminating Mother's parental rights in her minor child A.E., holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a hearing, which neither Mother nor Father attended, the trial court entered orders terminating the parents' parental rights in the children on grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (5), and (6). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Father's challenges to the majority of the trial court's findings were unavailing; (2) the trial court did not err by concluding that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect; and (3) the trial court did not err by concluding that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect. View "In re A.E." on Justia Law