Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Morris Communications Corporation d/b/a Fairway Outdoor Advertising (Fairway) sought to re-erect a sign after its lawfully constructed sign was condemned by the DOT. Fairway applied for and received a sign permit for the relocated sign. The permit required that the work commence six months from the date of issuance. After Fairway took down its sign and reinstalled it, the city sent Fairway a notice of violation, asserting that the sign violated the city's outdoor advertising ban and asserting that Fairway's sign permit had expired because work on the project had not commenced prior to the permit's expiration date. Fairway appealed the notice to the board of adjustment (BOA), which affirmed the determination. The court of appeals affirmed. Fairway appealed. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court erred in determining the BOA's interpretation of the sign ordinance was entitled to deference under de novo review. Because the BOA's interpretation of its sign ordinance constituted an error of law, the Court reversed.View "Morris Commc'ns Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Bd. of Adjust." on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Mario Phillips guilty of four counts of first-degree murder. The jury also found defendant guilty of first-degree kidnapping, attempted first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, robbery with a firearm, and first-degree arson. Following a capital sentencing hearing, the jury recommended a sentence of death for each murder conviction. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that (1) the trial court erred in regard to several pretrial matters such as denying defendant's motion to suppress and denying him effective assistance of counsel; (2) the trial court erred in regard to several matters during the trial such as admitting certain testimony and not intervening during the state's closing argument; (3) the trial court erred in regard to certain sentencing proceeding matters such as failing to intervene during the state's closing argument; and (4) the trial court erred in regard to several preservation issues. The Supreme Court overruled each assignment of error. The Court concluded that the defendant received a fair trial and capital sentencing proceeding and that the death sentence imposed by the trial court was not disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. No error.View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Gervis Sadler owned a house that he insured through a limited-peril policy issued by North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau). Farm Bureau adjusters investigated the home on two separate occasions, but Sadler disagreed with the amount of loss and asked for a disinterested appraisal. In the disinterested appraisal, Farm Bureau's appraiser valued the loss at $31,561. The appraisal award calculated by Sadler's appraiser and the umpire valued the loss at $162,500. Farm Bureau filed a complaint for declaratory relief, alleging the appraisal award failed to itemize the damages so Farm Bureau could determine the covered losses. Sadler moved for partial summary judgment on his breach of contract counterclaim. The trial court granted Sadler's request for partial summary judgment. Farm Bureau appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of Sadler because genuine issues of material fact needed to be resolved before the loss covered by the policy could be determined. View "N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Sadler" on Justia Law

Defendant Benzion Biber was indicted for felonious possession of cocaine. Prior to trial defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court's ruling on his suppression motion was erroneous in that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him for constructive possession of the powdery substance found in his motel room and thus evidence of the crack rocks for which defendant was convicted should be excluded as the fruit of an unlawful seizure. The court of appeals reversed. At issue was whether the trial court was correct in implicitly concluding that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, holding (1) the trial court's findings of fact supported probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of a controlled substance, and (2) the appellate court majority utilized an incorrect evidentiary standard to determine probable cause.View "State v. Biber" on Justia Law

Following a termination of parental rights (TPR) hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating both parents' parental rights to J.H.K. and J.D.K. The father appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in conducting the TPR hearing when the minor children's non-attorney guardian ad litem (GAL) volunteer was not physically present in court. The court of appeals reversed, concluding the children were not represented by a GAL at a critical stage of the termination proceedings pursuant to the juvenile code. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that a local GAL program represents a juvenile within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-601 and 7B-1108 by performing the duties listed in section 7B-601 and that the non-lawyer GAL volunteer is not required to be physically present at the TPR hearing. The Court concluded that the GAL met its obligations in the present case under the statutes.View "In re J.H.K. and J.D.K." on Justia Law