Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of trafficking in opium by possession. During the trial, a laboratory report of the results of a chemical analysis of the contraband were admitted, over Defendant’s objection, without calling the testing chemist as a witness. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the State failed to establish that Defendant waived his confrontation rights because the record did not demonstrate that the State had provided a pretrial copy of the lab report to Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Defendant failed properly to raise or preserve the issue regarding the State’s compliance with the statutory requirement that the State provide a copy of the lab report to a defendant before trial. Remanded. View "State v. Whittington" on Justia Law

The trial court entered two orders, the first of which ceased reunification efforts between Mother and her children, and the second of which terminated Mother's parental rights. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court's cease reunification order failed to satisfy the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-507, which requires trial courts to make written findings of fact that further reunification efforts would be futile or inconsistent with the child's health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home. The court of appeals reversed both orders after finding perceived deficiencies in the cease reunification order but without considering the termination of parental rights order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court's written findings of fact in a permanency planning order that consider the factors in section 7B-507 need not recite the statutory language verbatim but should address the substance of the statutory requirements; (2) even if the permanency planning order is deficient standing alone, the appellate court should review that order in conjunction with the termination of parental rights order to determine whether the statutory requirements are met; and (3), in this case, both the permanency planning order and the termination of parental rights order complied with the statutory mandate. View "In re L.M.T" on Justia Law

Defendant Corinna and her husband founded Piedmont Southern Air Freight, a shipping company. Corinna later delegated responsibility and authority for the company to her son Jack. Jack partnered with Larry to create Piedmont Express Airways and Piedmont Capital Holding of North Carolina. Plaintiffs each gave the Piedmont companies $200,000 as a loan and as an investment. After all of Plaintiffs' $400,000 had been spent, Plaintiffs sued Jack, Larry, Corinna, and the Piedmont companies to recover the funds, alleging several claims. As for Corinna, only Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and piercing the corporate veil claims were submitted to the jury. The jury entered a verdict against Corinna on those issues. The court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed on the breach of fiduciary duty issue, holding that Plaintiffs' evidence on their breach of fiduciary duty claim was insufficient as a matter of law, and Plaintiffs' agency claims were the only remaining claims to which personal liability may attach under the piercing the corporate veil doctrine. Remanded for consideration of Plaintiffs' cross-appeal from the trial court's dismissal of their agency claims against Corinna and the effect of the agency claims on the application of the piercing the corporate veil doctrine. View "Green v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff suffered a compensable injury while working for Defendant. Since Plaintiff's injury, his wife (Wife) attended to his needs. The North Carolina Industrial Commission later determined that Plaintiff required attendant care services, which Wife provided. Plaintiff and Defendant disagreed whether Wife should be compensated for the attendant care she provided Plaintiff before the Commission approved her rendering that service. The Commission concluded that Wife's attendant care services were medical compensation for which Defendant was responsible and further compensated Wife for the attendant care services previously provided. The court of appeals reversed in part the opinion and award entered by the Commission that provided retroactive compensation for Wife's attendant care services to her husband. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals on that issue because the court relied on a provision of the Commission's medical fee schedule that was not authorized by the legislature. Remanded. View "Mehaffey v. Burger King" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought a judicial determination that the 2011 legislative changes made to North Carolina's pre-kindergarten program failed to comply with the state's constitutional obligations recognized in Leandro v. State and Hoke County Board of Education v. State. After a hearing, the trial court found that some of the changes violated the State Constitution and mandating that the State not deny any eligible at-risk four-year-old admission to the North Carolina pre-kindergarten program. While the State's appeal was pending, the General Assembly amended the challenged statutory provisions. The court of appeals subsequently affirmed the trial court in part and dismissed the appeal in part. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal as moot because the 2012 amendments constituted material and substantial changes to the provisions that the trial court found unconstitutional, and thus the questions originally in controversy between the parties were no longer at issue. View "Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v State" on Justia Law

Greensboro police officers recovered a firearm ten to twelve feet from a car in which Defendant, a convicted felon, was a passenger. Defendant was arrested and later confessed that the firearm belonged to him. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a felon. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon because, pursuant to the corpus delicti rule, the State did not present corroborative evidence, independent of Defendant's confession, tending to show that the crime in question occurred. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the State v. Parker articulation of the corpus delicti rule, the State was not required to submit alternative evidence proving Defendant's identity as the perpetrator beyond Defendant's confession, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient for the State to survive Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. View "State v. Cox" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendants formed a limited liability company. The operating agreement contained an arbitration provision providing that any dispute arising out of the operating agreement shall be settled by arbitration. Plaintiff later filed suit against Defendants, alleging numerous claims, including breach of good faith and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration on those two issues under the operating agreement. The trial court denied the motion, concluding (1) the two claims in question did not arise out of the operating agreement or any breach or violation of the agreement, and (2) alternatively, Defendants waived any right they had to arbitration by engaging in discovery that would not have been available as a matter of right during the arbitration process and that Plaintiffs were prejudiced by these actions. The court of appeals affirmed on the basis of waiver. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff failed to establish prejudicial actions inconsistent with arbitration, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order finding waiver of contractual arbitration rights. Remanded. View "HCW Ret. & Fin. Servs., LLC v. HCW Employee Benefit Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs obtained loans from Defendant, a bank. Plaintiffs later, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, filed a complaint alleging that Defendant's loan transactions violated North Carolina's unfair and deceptive practices statute. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that they paid loan discount fees but did not receive discounted loans and that the fees they were charged in connection with origination of their loans were unnecessary and unreasonable. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs on their loan discount claims and excessive pricing claims under N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1. The court of appeals affirmed entry of summary judgment on Plaintiffs' loan discount claims but reversed the grant of summary judgment on the excessive fees claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) issues of material fact existed in regards to Plaintiffs' loan discount claims; and (2) Plaintiffs' excessive pricing claims were not recognized by section 75-1.1. Remanded. View "Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, and Defendant thereafter admitted his habitual felon status. Defendant appealed, arguing that the admission of testimony by an expert in forensic chemistry regarding the results of a chemical analysis performed by another chemist violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. The court of appeals reversed and granted Defendant a new trial, concluding that the admission of the testimony was error. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that even if admission of the testimony was error, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the testimony of an expert in forensic science as to her opinion that the substance found in Defendant's vehicle was cocaine based upon her independent analysis of testing performed by another analyst in her laboratory violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him was not violated in this case, where (1) the admission of the expert's opinion, from the expert's own analysis of the data, constituted the substantive evidence being prevented against Defendant, and Defendant was able to cross-examine the expert concerning all aspects of her testimony; and (2) even assuming the admission of the expert's opinion violated Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause, the error was harmless. View "State v. Ortiz-Zape" on Justia Law