Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

While on probation, Defendant was indicted for several crimes. After a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing, which consisted of hearsay evidence, was not competent so as to satisfy a judge that Defendant had willfully violated a valid condition of probation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court was justified in activating Defendant’s suspended sentence where the evidence allowed the reasonable conclusion that Defendant had continued a course of criminal action and posed a danger to the public. View "State v. Murchison" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of felony breaking or entering, two counts of felony larceny, and one count of possession of cocaine. Defendant’s sentences for the offenses were suspended and he was placed on probation. After Defendant violated his probation the trial court revoked his probation and activated his sentences for the remaining offenses for which he was on probation. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to revoke his probation on one count of larceny because the original indictment for the offense was fatally defective. The Court of Appeals held that Defendant’s appeal was proper. The Supreme Court reversed this determination, holding that a defendant may not collaterally challenge the validity of an underlying indictment by means of an appeal from revocation of his probation. View "State v. Pennell" on Justia Law

Defendant’s vehicle was stopped by a firefighter for driving erratically. Defendant unexpectedly drove away from the scene but was soon encountered by police officers, who cited her for driving while impaired and driving while license revoked. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to driving while impaired. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress, claiming that firefighters do not have legal authority to conduct traffic stops. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order, finding that the firefighter’s actions constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Defendant never challenged the actions of the arresting officers, she presented no legal basis for suppressing the evidence supporting her conviction. View "State v. Verkerk" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an Alabama corporation, filed a breach of contract action against Defendant, a North Carolina limited liability company, in Alabama, alleging breach of contract. The Alabama court entered a default judgment against Defendant. Plaintiff subsequently filed a request to file a foreign judgment in a North Carolina court, presenting a certified copy of the Alabama judgment. In response, Defendant filed a motion for relief from and notice of defense to the foreign judgment. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion, concluding that, in accordance with N.C. R. Civ. P. 60(b), the intrinsic fraud of Plaintiff in obtaining the underlying Alabama judgment precluded enforcement of the Alabama judgment as a judgment of North Carolina. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order, concluding that intrinsic fraud was not a sufficient ground under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to deny Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Alabama judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals as modified, holding that the Alabama judgment was a final judgment and was entitled to the same credit in North Carolina that it would be accorded in Alabama, and Rule 60(b) had no applicability as a defense to a foreign judgment. View "DocRx, Inc. v. EMI Servs. of N.C., LLC" on Justia Law

After Mother discontinued her romantic relationship with Father, she gave birth to Child. A couple filed a petition to adopt Child, after which the adoption agency filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the absent father. Father subsequently learned that Mother had given birth and filed motions seeking to intervene in the adoption proceeding and to secure child custody. The trial court denied Father’s motion to intervene. The trial court then allowed the adoption to proceed without Father’s consent and denied all motions made by him. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Father’s consent was not required under N.C. Gen. Stat. 48-3-601 but that insufficient facts existed as to whether applying section 48-3-601 to Father would violate his due process rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Father failed to obtain notice of the birth, to acknowledge paternity, and to establish himself as a responsible parent within the time set by statute, Father fell outside the class of responsible biological fathers who enjoy a constitutionally protected relationship with their natural children. View "In re Adoption of S.D.W." on Justia Law

Borrowers applied from a home mortgage loan from Lender. During the transaction, a loan officer made an incorrect statement about lien priority. Borrowers later filed breach of fiduciary and negligent misrepresentation claims against Lender, alleging that the junior status of Lender’s lien decreased the marketability and value of their home and exposed them to increased liability. The trial court granted Lender’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. The Court of Appeals concluded that material issues of fact barred summary judgment on Borrowers’ breach of fiduciary duty claim, reasoning that Lender’s assurance of a first priority lien on Borrowers’ new mortgage loan was an act beyond the scope of a normal debtor-creditor relationship. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for Lender on both claims where no fiduciary duty existed and where Plaintiffs did not forecast evidence that they made a reasonable inquiry into the validity of the loan officer’s statements. View "Dallaire v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

After visiting a county office building to pay his water bill, James Bynum fell while walking down the front steps. As a result, Bynum’s legs and right arm were paralyzed. Bynum and his wife filed a complaint against the County alleging that the County negligently failed to inspect, maintain, and repair a county office building. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the County was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity because the County’s operation of the building was governmental in nature. View "Bynum v. Wilson Cnty" on Justia Law

By 2013, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) had purchased several hundred properties for the construction of a highway project known as the Northern Beltway. In 2010, Plaintiffs filed a complaint and declaratory judgment against NCDOT, asserting claims for, inter alia, inverse condemnation. Plaintiffs also sought class certification for themselves and all others similarly situated whose property NCDOT was “obliged to purchase.” The proposed class included over 800 property owners within the Northern Beltway. The trial court denied NCDOT’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim of inverse condemnation but denied class certification. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part the opinion of the court of appeals, holding (1) the courts below erred in analyzing the substantive merits of Plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claim at the class certification stage; and (2) the court of appeals correctly concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification because the unique nature of property, coupled with the large number of diverse tracts involved in this litigation, would make individual issues predominate over common issues of law and fact in a trial on the merits. View "Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree kidnapping, possession of a firearm by a felon, assault of a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and related offenses. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence of removal, an essential element of second-degree kidnapping. The court of appeals agreed and reversed Defendant’s second-degree kidnapping conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) when an appellate court concludes that a defendant’s conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, the court must determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support a lesser included offense of the convicted crime, and if the court so determines, the jury’s verdict is recognized as a verdict of guilty to the lesser included offense; (2) the court of appeals in this case erred by refusing to consider whether Defendant’s actions constituted the lesser included offense of attempted second-degree kidnapping; and (3) the State presented sufficient evidence that Defendant’s actions satisfied each element of attempted second-degree kidnapping. Remanded for entry of judgment on the lesser offense. View "State v. Stokes" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Eric Jones was found guilty of two counts of obtaining property by false pretenses and one count of identity theft, and Jerry White was found guilty of four counts of trafficking in stolen identities. The charges arose from unauthorized charges made on the credit cards of several persons. The trial court subsequently dismissed the charges against Jones for obtaining property by false pretenses and all trafficking in stolen identities charges against White on the basis that the indictments were insufficient as a matter of law. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that Jones possessed the specific intent to commit identity theft; and (2) the indictments against the defendants were insufficient to support the convictions against Jones for obtaining property by false pretenses and against White for trafficking in stolen identities. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law