Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A health care provider operating imaging centers in Wake County, North Carolina, and a major hospital system both applied for a Certificate of Need (CON) to acquire a new fixed MRI scanner, as required by state law. The state’s 2021 plan determined that only one additional scanner could be approved in the county. The provider sought to place the scanner in Wake Forest, while the hospital system proposed a location in Raleigh. After a competitive review, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services awarded the CON to the hospital system, finding its application more effective under certain comparative factors.The provider challenged this decision in the Office of Administrative Hearings, alleging the agency’s review was flawed and prejudicial. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the agency’s comparative analysis contained errors, deviated from established practices, and was based on subjective judgment rather than expertise or proper procedure. The ALJ reversed the agency’s decision and awarded the CON to the provider, also finding that the provider suffered substantial prejudice from the denial.On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the ALJ’s decision, holding that the appellants failed to challenge specific findings of fact, which made those findings binding on appeal. The court applied the whole record review standard, focusing on whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that, under current law, the ALJ’s final decision—not the agency’s—is the focus of judicial review, and a high degree of deference is owed to the ALJ’s findings. The Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment regarding the comparative analysis but reversed on the issue of substantial prejudice, finding that the provider, as a denied applicant, was inherently prejudiced by the agency’s decision. The award of the CON to the provider was affirmed. View "Pinnacle Health Servs. of N.C. LLC v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs" on Justia Law

A tenured professor at Winston-Salem State University was terminated in 2017 for failing to fulfill essential job duties, including grading and teaching, and for sending a letter to a colleague containing offensive racial slurs. The professor challenged his dismissal through the university’s administrative process, arguing, among other things, that the university did not follow its own rules and regulations regarding the termination of tenured faculty.The case proceeded from the university’s Board of Trustees to the University of North Carolina Board of Governors, then to the Superior Court in Forsyth County, and finally to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. At each stage, the professor’s claims were rejected. The Court of Appeals held that courts must defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless that interpretation is plainly erroneous, relying on federal law principles.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case to clarify the standard for judicial review of state agency interpretations of their own regulations. The court held that, under North Carolina law, courts must apply de novo review to state agency interpretations of state rules and regulations, meaning courts are not bound by the agency’s interpretation but may consider it as informative. The court expressly rejected any rule requiring judicial deference to state agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations and overruled contrary lower court precedent. On a separate issue, the court determined that the Court of Appeals dissent erred in suggesting a remand was necessary for further First Amendment analysis, holding that appellate courts may resolve such legal questions de novo without remand if the issue was preserved. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Mitchell v. Univ. of N.C. Bd. of Governors" on Justia Law

Law enforcement in New Hanover County received information from a confidential source that the defendant was trafficking and distributing large quantities of cocaine. Based on this tip, Detective Wenk applied for a court order to obtain cell-site location information (CSLI) for the defendant’s phone, along with other investigative tools. The trial court found probable cause and granted the order, allowing law enforcement to monitor the defendant’s CSLI. This data showed the defendant’s phone traveling from Wilmington, North Carolina, to Hayward, California, and back, coinciding with suspected drug trafficking activity. Officers later stopped and searched the defendant’s vehicle, discovering trafficking amounts of cocaine. The defendant was indicted on multiple drug-related charges and moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the CSLI and subsequent searches.The Superior Court of New Hanover County denied the motion to suppress, finding reasonable suspicion supported the order and the vehicle stop. The defendant entered an Alford plea but appealed the suppression ruling. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the order for CSLI was not supported by probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence should be suppressed. The appellate court rejected the State’s argument that a statutory good faith exception applied, citing prior precedent that the North Carolina Constitution did not recognize such an exception.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the statutory good faith exception in N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 applies only to evidence obtained in substantial violation of Chapter 15A, not to evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. However, the court further held that neither the United States Constitution nor the North Carolina Constitution required exclusion of the CSLI in this case, and formally adopted a good faith exception under the state constitution equivalent to the federal standard. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, upholding the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion. View "State v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Melvin Joseph Long was fatally injured while working on an industrial chiller at North Carolina State University. The chiller, which had been improperly winterized by university maintenance employees, developed internal pressure after water left in its tubes froze and caused the tubes to burst, allowing refrigerant to enter and pressurize the system. When Long, an OSHA-certified pipefitter, attempted to remove a flange from the chiller, the pressurized component caused the flange to detach explosively, striking him and resulting in his death.After the incident, Long’s estate filed a wrongful death action in the Superior Court of Person County against the university employees involved. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact and concluding that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The estate appealed, arguing that issues of foreseeability and contributory negligence should have precluded summary judgment. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the accident was not a foreseeable result of the defendants’ actions and, alternatively, that contributory negligence barred recovery.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case de novo. It held that the uncontradicted evidence demonstrated the accident resulted from an unforeseeable sequence of events, and that foreseeability is a necessary element of proximate cause for actionable negligence. The Court found that neither the defendants’ training nor the equipment manuals provided any basis to reasonably foresee the type of injury that occurred. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding summary judgment for the defendants. View "Long v. Fowler" on Justia Law

The case concerns two young siblings, E.H. and R.H., whose parents brought E.H., a three-week-old infant, to the hospital with a fractured arm. Medical examinations revealed multiple acute fractures on E.H.’s body, which doctors concluded were caused by nonaccidental trauma, likely from shaking or similar abuse. Both parents denied any knowledge of how the injuries occurred and provided no plausible explanation. They were E.H.’s sole caretakers, and there was no evidence that anyone else had access to the child. The Department of Social Services (DSS) intervened, taking both E.H. and his older brother R.H. into custody.The District Court of New Hanover County adjudicated E.H. as abused and neglected and R.H. as neglected, finding that the parents’ inability to explain E.H.’s injuries and refusal to accept responsibility created an injurious environment for both children. The court found that, given the parents’ lack of accountability, there was a substantial risk of similar harm to R.H. The parents appealed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the adjudication for E.H. but, in a divided opinion, vacated the neglect adjudication for R.H., reasoning that the trial court relied solely on E.H.’s abuse without specific findings predictive of probable neglect for R.H. The majority remanded for further findings, while the dissent argued the trial court’s findings were sufficient.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision regarding R.H. The Supreme Court held that when a child is severely abused and the parents cannot plausibly explain the injuries or assure that abuse will not recur, a trial court may find that other children in the home are at substantial risk and thus neglected. The Court also emphasized that appellate courts should not address issues not raised by the parties. The adjudication of R.H. as neglected was reinstated. View "In re E.H. & R.H." on Justia Law

A group of bar owners and employees in North Carolina challenged a series of executive orders issued by the Governor during the COVID-19 pandemic. These orders required bars to remain closed for over 400 days, while allowing other businesses, including restaurants, breweries, and wineries, to reopen under certain restrictions. The plaintiffs argued that this differential treatment lacked a meaningful public health justification and violated their constitutional and statutory rights. They also sought records supporting the Governor’s decisions and claimed entitlement to compensation under the Emergency Management Act.In the Superior Court, Wake County, the trial judge denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and granted the Governor’s motion to dismiss, finding that the executive orders were reasonable and based on scientific data. The trial court also dismissed the statutory claims, concluding that the Emergency Management Act did not provide compensation for mere restrictions on business operations and that the Public Records Act claim was moot because the requested records had been produced. The North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that the trial court had effectively granted summary judgment and vacated that order on the constitutional claims, remanding for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals applied rational basis review to the Fruits of Labor claim and strict scrutiny to the Equal Protection claim, finding the Governor’s actions unjustified under both standards. It affirmed dismissal of the statutory claims.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. It held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the Fruits of Labor claim and that the proper legal standard, as clarified in Ace Speedway, is not rational basis but a fact-intensive inquiry into whether the government’s action was reasonably necessary to promote a public good. The Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ remand for further proceedings on this claim, allowing additional discovery. However, it reversed the Court of Appeals’ application of strict scrutiny to the Equal Protection claim, holding that rational basis review applies to economic regulations not involving a suspect class or fundamental right. The Court affirmed dismissal of the statutory claims, finding no entitlement to compensation under the Emergency Management Act and no jurisdiction for the Public Records Act claim due to failure to complete required mediation. View "Bar and Tavern Ass'n v. Stein" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs purchased a home in a subdivision governed by restrictive covenants that generally prohibit keeping animals other than up to three horses, unless the animals are “household pets” not kept for commercial purposes. After moving in, the plaintiffs acquired a flock of chickens, which at times numbered around sixty. The homeowners association notified the plaintiffs that keeping chickens violated the covenants and threatened fines. The plaintiffs argued that their chickens were household pets and not used commercially, while the association disagreed, citing the number of chickens and evidence suggesting some eggs were sold.In the Superior Court of Union County, both parties moved for summary judgment, but the court found factual disputes and sent the case to a jury. At trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence of their affectionate relationship with the chickens, while the association highlighted the flock’s size and evidence of egg sales. The jury found that the chickens were not household pets, and the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The plaintiffs appealed, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was no evidence the chickens were not household pets and that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the trial court properly denied the motions for directed verdict and JNOV because there was more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the jury’s finding that the chickens were not household pets. The Court also found no error in the trial court’s jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or limitations on closing arguments. The main holding is that whether the chickens qualified as household pets was a factual question for the jury, and sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict for the homeowners association. View "Schroeder v. Oak Grove Farm Homeowners Ass'n" on Justia Law

A mother and father, after separating, entered into a consent order in 2017 granting them joint legal and physical custody of their two children, one of whom has a serious medical condition. The order required cooperation regarding the child’s medical care. In 2020, following ongoing disputes and allegations of contempt by the father, the parties agreed to a modified custody order that maintained joint custody but appointed a parenting coordinator to help manage escalating conflict, particularly regarding the children’s medical needs.Subsequently, the father repeatedly disagreed with the parenting coordinator’s decisions, refused to comply with directives about the children’s therapy and medication, and engaged in hostile conduct toward the coordinator. The mother moved to modify custody again, alleging the father’s actions endangered the children’s welfare. The District Court, Wake County, found that the father’s conduct—including failure to administer medication and interference with therapy—adversely affected the children’s health and welfare. The court issued temporary and then permanent orders granting the mother primary physical custody and final decision-making authority on major issues.The father appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate majority held that the findings did not support a conclusion of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the children’s welfare, reasoning that the children were insulated from parental conflict.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that an escalating pattern of conflict and a parent’s unwillingness to communicate or cooperate regarding the children’s health, education, and welfare can constitute a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification of a custody order. The Court found the trial court’s findings supported both the existence of such a change and that modification was in the children’s best interests. The case was remanded to reinstate the trial court’s modified custody order. View "Durbin v. Durbin" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, after consuming a significant amount of alcohol and becoming heavily intoxicated, joined a group of friends at a municipal golf course and later proceeded to the driving range. While at the driving range, the plaintiff sat in a golf cart, distracted by his phone and unaware of his surroundings. The cart’s exact position was disputed, but evidence showed it was in or near the range of play. Defendant Hendricks, one of the group, hit a golf ball from the tee-off area, which struck the plaintiff in the eye, causing serious injury. The plaintiff did not see the ball coming and was unaware of the risk due to his lack of attention and intoxication.The plaintiff filed a negligence suit in the Superior Court, Wilson County, against both Hendricks and the City of Wilson, alleging negligent conduct and inadequate safety measures. Both defendants raised contributory negligence as a defense, and the City also asserted governmental immunity. The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants, finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The plaintiff appealed, and a divided panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff’s lack of situational awareness, due in part to intoxication and distraction, barred recovery. The majority also found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the cart’s location or movement and declined to address governmental immunity.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because the risk of injury was open and obvious, and a reasonably prudent person would have recognized and avoided the danger. The Court did not address the issue of governmental immunity, as contributory negligence was dispositive. View "Moseley v. Hendricks" on Justia Law

George Jackson purchased a RainSoft home water treatment system from Carolina Water Systems, which operated as an authorized service provider for Home Depot in North Carolina and South Carolina. At the time of purchase, Carolina Water Systems was running a promotion that offered customers rebates or refunds for referring other potential buyers, with the possibility of a full refund for sufficient referrals. Jackson later defaulted on payments for the system, leading to a debt-collection action by Citibank. In response, Jackson argued that his debt was void under North Carolina’s referral statute, which prohibits sales promotions offering consideration for customer referrals. He subsequently brought a putative class action against the defendants, seeking relief for himself and others who purchased systems during the promotion.After preliminary issues were resolved, including a federal court removal and arbitration challenges, Jackson moved in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County to certify a class of all purchasers of RainSoft systems from the defendants between November 2012 and November 2016. The trial court granted class certification, finding that the requirements for class actions were met and that a class action was the superior method for resolving the dispute.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the class certification order. The Court held that North Carolina’s referral statute does not require proof that the illegal sales promotion induced each buyer to make a purchase, thus supporting class certification for North Carolina residents. However, the Court found that South Carolina’s referral statute does require inducement, which would necessitate individualized inquiries and defeat the predominance requirement for class certification. Therefore, the Supreme Court of North Carolina vacated the trial court’s class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law