Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Carolina dealt with the issue of whether a statute of limitations barred a defendant's counterclaim for negligence because it was filed one day after the three-year limitations period had expired. The court ruled that the counterclaim should be considered as having been filed on the same date that the plaintiff commenced his lawsuit, thus making it timely.The case originated from a two-automobile accident that occurred on 19 December 2015. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant over injuries he allegedly sustained in the accident on 19 December 2018. The defendant filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff for his own injuries on 20 December 2018, arguing that the plaintiff's own negligence caused the accident. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, asserting that the counterclaim should be dismissed under N.C.G.S. § 1-52(16) because it was filed outside the statute’s three-year limit for personal injury claims.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, arguing that his counterclaim filed on 20 December 2018 should be deemed to relate back to the filing of the original complaint by the plaintiff on 19 December 2018, and thus should be considered timely filed within the three-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment order dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, reasoning that for purposes of the statute of limitations in N.C.G.S. § 1-52(16), the filing of a compulsory counterclaim relates back to the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the court held that N.C.G.S. § 1-52(16) did not bar the defendant’s compulsory counterclaim against the plaintiff. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Upchurch v. Harp Builders, Inc" on Justia Law

This case revolves around a promotional flyer from a car dealership that led plaintiffs to believe they had won a major prize. Instead, they received a minor prize, leading them to file a class action lawsuit alleging deception. The trial court certified the case as a class action, but the defendants appealed. The Supreme Court of North Carolina found the trial court's certification order internally inconsistent as it used one class definition in its analysis and another when certifying the class.The plaintiffs had brought their claim on behalf of all individuals who received a contest flyer and went to the dealership to claim their prize. However, the trial court's analysis of the certification criteria was based on a narrower definition of the class, specifically those who both called the dealership's hotline and visited the dealership. This inconsistency led the Supreme Court to vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.The Supreme Court further directed the trial court to examine potential conflicts of interest within the class and assess the potential for inefficiencies that could render class certification inappropriate. It emphasized that the class members' potential recovery must exceed the costs of administering a class action for certification to be warranted. View "Surgeon v. TKO Shelby, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Frankie Delano Washington, was convicted of various serious felony offenses. During his trial, he asserted that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. His argument was initially rejected, but later won on appeal and his convictions were set aside. Subsequently, Washington and his son filed a suit against the State and various state and local officials, alleging that the State knowingly charged him for crimes he did not commit. Among the numerous claims brought forth, Washington argued for a common law claim against the State for damages caused by the deprivation of his state constitutional right to a speedy trial.However, the Supreme Court of North Carolina held that Washington had an adequate state law remedy and therefore, a separate Corum claim was not available. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had already received a meaningful remedy for the State's violation of his rights, as his criminal convictions had been permanently set aside. The court further clarified that an "adequate remedy" is one that meaningfully addresses the constitutional violation, even if the plaintiff might prefer a different form of relief. This decision upholds the foundational principle that a Corum claim is applicable when one's rights are violated, and the law offers either no remedy or a remedy that is meaningless. The court ultimately affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had upheld the trial court's entry of summary judgment. View "Washington v. Cline" on Justia Law

This case was brought before the Supreme Court of North Carolina to determine whether a person who files a motion to claim exempt property after a judgment is entered makes a general appearance in the action and thereby waives objections to the sufficiency of service of process and personal jurisdiction.The plaintiff, John Slattery, alleged that he was induced to invest $500,000 in a sham technology company, Appy City, by defendants Timothy Fields and Melissa Crete. Later, he named additional defendants, including Daisy Mae Barber, alleging they conspired to hide the invested funds by converting them into cryptocurrency. The Business Court entered default judgment against all defendants, including Barber, when they failed to respond to the complaint. Barber first appeared in the case when she filed a motion to claim exempt property. Later, she moved to set aside the entries of default and summary judgment, arguing the Business Court’s judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction as she had not been served with process nor appeared in the action before the entry of summary judgment.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that when a defendant makes a general appearance in an action after the entry of a judgment, she waives any objections to the lack of personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process if she does not raise those objections at that time. Therefore, Barber, by filing a motion to claim exempt property, made a general appearance in the underlying action and did not raise her objections to personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process until over three months later. As a result, she waived these objections, and the Business Court’s judgment may be enforced. The decision of the Business Court was affirmed. View "Slattery v. Appy City, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed a decision by the Court of Appeals regarding the interpretation of a clause in the Financial Responsibility Act (FRA) about underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The defendant, Mr. Hebert, was in a vehicle accident where multiple parties were injured, and he sought to claim UIM coverage under his policy and his parents' policy. The Court of Appeals had allowed him to "stack" or add together the UIM limits from both policies to qualify his vehicle as underinsured. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation.The court held that the FRA's plain language only permits the claimant’s UIM coverages that pertain to the vehicle involved in the accident, not all UIM policies for which the UIM claimant is personally eligible. Therefore, the defendant could not stack his policy’s UIM limits with his parents’ policy’s UIM limits to qualify his vehicle as underinsured. The court concluded that the defendant's vehicle did not qualify as an underinsured highway vehicle under the FRA, and he could not activate his policy’s UIM coverage. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff, North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. View "N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hebert" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the plaintiff, David Beavers, brought civil claims for alienation of affection and criminal conversation against his ex-wife’s alleged lover, John McMican. The main issues revolved around the interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 52-13 which specifies that post-separation conduct cannot give rise to liability, and whether the trial court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of McMican.The court determined that the Rodriguez v. Lemus decision, regarding what evidence is relevant to prove pre-separation conduct, was consistent with the legislative intent of N.C.G.S. § 52-13. The court held that evidence of post-separation conduct may be used to corroborate pre-separation conduct, as long as the pre-separation conduct gives rise to more than mere conjecture.However, the court found that the evidence of pre-separation conduct in this specific case did not rise above mere conjecture regarding the identity of Mrs. Beavers’ paramour. Consequently, the court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. McMican. No sufficient evidence was presented to support the essential elements of Beavers’s claims against McMican, namely the sexual intercourse element of the criminal conversation claim, or the malice prong of the alienation of affection claim. View "Beavers v. McMican" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Carolina was asked to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing and remanding the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, a landlord, in a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff, a tenant. The plaintiff had suffered serious burns in an explosion caused by a gas leak in the rental property. He claimed that the landlord had been negligent, violated the Residential Rental Agreements Act (RRAA), and breached the implied warranty of habitability.The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s decision. The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence that he had notified the landlord of the issues with the flooring or the heating system, or that the landlord had any actual knowledge of these issues. Consequently, the landlord's duty under the RRAA had not yet arisen. Therefore, the landlord could not be held liable for negligence, violation of the RRAA, or breach of the implied warranty of habitability.The Court further clarified that the RRAA does not completely abrogate the common law principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) in relation to repairs and dangerous conditions on leased residential premises. The RRAA only imposes a duty on the landlord to make repairs after receiving notice or acquiring actual knowledge of the need for them. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals on all of the plaintiff's claims, reinstated the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and dismissed the matter. View "Terry v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.C" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled on a case involving Halikierra Community Services LLC (Halikierra), a provider of home personal care services to Medicaid beneficiaries and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). DHHS had placed Halikierra on Medicaid reimbursement prepayment review following several overbilling complaints, leading to several post-payment audits. The audits revealed that Halikierra had erroneously received excess Medicaid reimbursement funds on multiple occasions and found suspicious reimbursement claims.Halikierra filed a lawsuit against DHHS, alleging that the decision to place them on prepayment review violated their substantive due process and equal protection rights under the North Carolina Constitution. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DHHS, leading to an appeal from Halikierra.The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that summary judgment was properly entered against Halikierra. The Court found that Halikierra’s evidentiary forecast failed to disclose any genuine issues of material fact in support of its claims. The Court concluded that DHHS's actions were not arbitrary or capricious, as the prepayment review was rationally related to a legitimate government interest, namely combating Medicaid fraud and ensuring that claims meet the requirements of federal and state laws and regulations. The Court also found no evidence of unequal treatment of Halikierra compared to other Medicaid providers. View "Halikierra Cmty. Servs. LLC v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Carolina was tasked with reviewing the decision of the Court of Appeals related to a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in 1999 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Over two decades later, the defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief (MAR), arguing that his trial counsel did not inform him of his right to testify and prevented him from testifying. He also claimed that his appellate counsel was ineffective because they filed an Anders brief.The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals correctly disposed of the defendant's claims. The record demonstrated that the defendant was aware of his right to testify, and there was no evidence to support his claim that his trial counsel prevented him from testifying. Furthermore, the defendant's claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge limitations on an expert witness’s testimony was without merit because the trial court had appropriately restricted the expert from using legal terminology. Therefore, the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel were deemed baseless.The Supreme Court also held that the standard of review set forth in a previous case, State v. Allen, which involved reviewing MARs in the light most favorable to defendants, was a departure from the court's longstanding standard of review. Thus, the court returned to the previous standard of review, which involves a statutory review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1420(c). View "State v. Walker" on Justia Law

In the case of the State of North Carolina v. Russell William Tucker, the defendant argued that his conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of death should be overturned due to alleged discrimination in jury selection. He asserted that newly discovered evidence, a continuing legal education handout and a statistical study, supported his claim of purposeful discrimination. However, the defendant had failed to raise a Batson claim (a claim of discrimination in jury selection) during his original trial or in previous post-conviction proceedings. The Supreme Court of North Carolina found that the defendant’s claim was procedurally barred and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.The defendant killed a security guard and shot two police officers in 1994. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. During jury selection, the defendant raised objections to the State’s peremptory strikes against black prospective jurors. The trial court found that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, and the defendant did not raise a Batson claim on direct appeal or in previous post-conviction proceedings.In this appeal, the defendant argued that the handout and study constituted newly discovered evidence that would support a Batson claim. The defense argued that these materials showed a pattern of racial discrimination in jury selection in North Carolina. However, the Court held that the defendant's claim was procedurally barred because he could have raised a Batson claim during his original trial or in previous post-conviction proceedings but failed to do so. The Court also found that the handout and study did not constitute newly discovered evidence and did not show that the defendant was prejudiced by the alleged discrimination. Therefore, the Court concluded that the defendant’s Batson claim was procedurally barred and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "State v. Tucker" on Justia Law