Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs were individual investors in undeveloped real estate that purchased real property shortly before the collapse of the real estate market. In 2010, Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover against a bank and its appraisers for their alleged participation in a scheme to defraud investors by artificially inflating property values. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that they would not have purchased the real property but for faulty appraisal information and that the bank should have disclosed the inflating appraised property values to them. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiffs did not receive the appraisals at the time of their decisions to purchase. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because it was undisputed that Plaintiffs decided to purchase the investment properties without consulting an appraisal and obligated themselves to purchase the properties independent of the loan process, Defendants were entitled to dismissal of all claims. View "Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant had three children during the course of their long-term domestic relationship. After they separated, Plaintiff, on the minor children’s behalf, brought claims alleging, inter alia, negligence, gross negligence, premises, liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissed the children’s claims, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims on the unemancipated minors’ behalf were barred under the parent-child immunity doctrine. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that the trial court erred in dismissing the unemancipated minors’ intentional infliction of emotional distress and gross negligence claims, as well as the related punitive damages claim, due to an exception to the parent-child immunity doctrine found in Doe v. Holt that any injuries sustained by unemancipated minors arising from a parent’s willful and malicious acts may be actionable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s conduct did not rise to the level of willful and malicious conduct against the unemancipated minors, and therefore, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant on all of Plaintiff’s claims was correct. View "Needham v. Price" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in more than four, but less than fourteen, grams of opium in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-95(h)(4)(a). The court of appeals vacated the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the State presented insufficient evidence that Defendant conspired or formed an agreement with another individual to traffic in Oxycodone, an opium derivative. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that Defendant agreed with another individual to traffic in at least four, but not more than fourteen, grams of Oxycodone. Remanded. View "State v. Winkler" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a trooper, was dismissed from the State Highway Patrol for allegedly violating the Patrol’s truthfulness policy. The State Personnel Commission (SPC) concluded that Petitioner’s dismissal was supported by just cause. The superior court reversed, determining that Petitioner’s conduct did not provide just cause for dismissal and that the decision to dismiss Petitioner was arbitrary and capricious. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the official who dismissed Petitioner proceeded under a misapprehension of the law that he had no discretion over the range of discipline he could administer; and (2) as such, by upholding the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety’s use of a per se rule of mandatory dismissal for all violations of a particular policy, the SPC failed to examine the facts and circumstances of Petitioner’s individual case as required by the state’s jurisprudence. Remanded for a decision by the employing agency as to whether Petitioner should be dismissed based upon the facts of this case and without the application of a per se rule. View "Wetherington v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety" on Justia Law

Following the 2010 decennial census, the General Assembly enacted redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives and for the North Carolina districts for the United States House of Representatives. Plaintiffs, registered voters, filed a complaint seeking to have the redistricting plans declared invalid on both constitutional and statutory grounds. The three-judge panel reviewing the redistricting plans upheld the plans. The Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court vacated this Court’s opinion and remanded for further consideration in light of its recent decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama. The Supreme Court reconsidered this case in light of Alabama and affirmed the three-judge panel’s judgment, holding that the General Assembly’s enacted plans do not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and satisfy state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements. Moreover, the three-judge panel’s decision fully complies with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Alabama. View "Dickson v. Rucho" on Justia Law

The Judicial Standards Commission entered a recommendation that Respondent James T. Hill, a judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, be publicly reprimanded for conduct in violation of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-376 for engaging in inappropriate conduct while presiding over divorce proceedings. The Supreme Court concluded that the Commission’s findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence in the record and that the Commission’s findings of fact supported its conclusions of law. Based upon these findings and conclusions, which the Court adopted as its own, the Supreme Court concluded and adjudged that Respondent should be publicly reprimanded. View "In re Judge James T. Hill" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of a stolen motor vehicle. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an active term of eighty-four to 113 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as a lesser-included offense of possession of a stolen vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that it was bound by its decision in State v. Oliver, which held that unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is not a lesser-included offense of possession of a stolen vehicle. Defendant appealed, claiming that Oliver was wrongly decided because that decision incorrectly interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Nickerson. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the Oliver court misapprehended the Supreme Court’s decision in Nickerson, and therefore, Oliver is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion; but (2) nevertheless, the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is not a lesser-included offense of possession of a stolen vehicle, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s request to instruct the jury on unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as guardian ad litem for Jakari Baize, filed a complaint against Defendants, healthcare providers, alleging negligence in failing properly to treat Jakari for a severe case of jaundice that left him permanently disabled. After discovery had been conducted and certain expert witnesses had been deposed, Plaintiff dismissed all claims against all defendants without prejudice. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion for an award of expert witness fees for the actual time that the experts Plaintiffs had designated spent testifying during their respective depositions as costs under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-305. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred by awarding the expert witness fees as costs because Defendants were statutorily required to subpoena the expert witnesses as a prerequisite for obtaining such relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the General Assembly eliminated the traditional subpoena requirement associated with the taxing of certain expert witness fees as costs in civil actions; and (2) therefore, the trial court correctly taxed expert witness fees in accordance with section 7A-305(d)(11) against Plaintiff. View "Lassiter v. N.C. Baptist Hosps., Inc." on Justia Law

Landowner sought to develop a townhouse community on residential property and obtained a zoning permit to develop the townhouses. Petitioner appealed the Zoning Officer’s formal determination to the Warren County Board of Adjustment. The Board overturned the Zoning Officer’s decision and revoked the zoning permit issued to Landowner. Landowner and Warren County subsequently entered into a consent order agreeing that the zoning permit would be reinstated. A Zoning Officer then issued a determination that the subject property was not restricted by Warren County Zoning Ordinances. Petitioner appealed the Zoning Officer’s determination. The Zoning Officer, however, did not place Petitioner’s appeal on the Board’s agenda. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus in superior court, requesting that the court compel Respondents to place his appeal on the Board’s next available agenda for a hearing. The court granted the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Zoning Officer had a mandatory statutory duty to transmit Petitioner’s appeal to the Board and the Petitioner had a right to have its appeal placed on the Board’s agenda. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a zoning officer may not refuse to transmit an appeal from his own zoning determining to the county board of adjustment for its review. View "Morningstar Marinas/Eaton Ferry, LLC v. Warren County" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for accessing a commercial social networking Web site as a registered sex offender in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-202.5. Defendant appealed, arguing that section 14-202.5 is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to him. The Court of Appeals vacated Defendant’s conviction, concluding that the statute violates the First Amendment and thus is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 14-202.5 is constitutional on its face, is constitutional as applied to Defendant, and is not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. View "State v. Packingham" on Justia Law