Appellate Court Opinions
Search Case Summaries / Headnotes.
View PDF Volumes.
15,820 Appellate Court Opinions
Brewton v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety
Industrial Commission, negligent, loss of use and enjoyment, right to compensation, value
Edwards v. Jessup
DWI, revoke, refused, chemical analysis, reasonable grounds, under the influence, asleep, due process, DMV employee
Fearrington v. City of Greenville
Red light cameras; subject-matter jurisdiction; exhaustion of administrative remedies; adequate state remedy; standing; N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 89C-23, 10; procedural due process; substantive due process; N.C. Const. Art. IX, § 7; Fines and Forfeitures Clause.
Galloway v. Snell
Reversing and remanding where settlement agreement provision is ambiguous.
Godwin v. Harvell
Wills and trusts; mental capacity; undue influence; summary judgment; directed verdict; affidavit; petition for attorneys fees.
Graham v. Lambert
Interlocutory; governmental immunity; public official immunity; and gross negligence
In re: K.W. & M.W.
Abuse, neglect, and dependency; findings of fact; and affect on the minor child.
State v. Bradley
Probation Revocation; Possession; Constructive Possession; Actual Possession; Vehicle; Maintain; Abuse of Discretion; Competent Evidence; N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 90-108; N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 15A-1343; and N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 15A-1344.
State v. Gallion
Sufficient search warrant application; sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law in suppression order; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-207; suppression of electronic monitoring data; hearsay; firearm identification evidence; sufficient evidence of first degree murder
State v. Mullinax
suppression, seizure, drugs, totality of circumstances, identification, command, walk away, additional officers, search of car, search of person, reasonable person, not free to leave
State v. Porter
Statutory sentencing range, probationary period, specific findings.
Town of Midland v. Harrell
Town of Midland; Harrell Land Development Company; dispute over responsibility for maintenance of roads in a development; civil penalties; standing; North Carolina General Statutes, Section 160A-12; Town ordinances; mandatory injunction and order of abatement; Rule 65(d) of North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure; NCDOT road standards; attorney's fees; North Carolina General Statutes, Section 6-21.7; Town violated unambiguous limits on its authority; North Carolina General Statutes, Section 160A-388(b1) (2017) (recodified as Section 160D-705(b) (2021)).
Unifund CCR Partners v. Young
Action on a judgment; renewal judgment; clerk's jurisdiction to enter default judgment; sum certain jurisdiction; applicability of the Consumer Economic Protection Act; affirmative defense of usury.
Vaitovas v. City of Greenville
Constitutionality of local law concerning traffic cameras; prohibition on local laws relating to health, sanitation and the abatement of nuisances; distinction between material connection and tangential or incidental connection to health
Supreme Court Opinions Filed March 11, 2022
Bishop v. Bishop
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's order modifying plaintiff's child support obligation; whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's order denying plaintiff's posttrial motions.
Button v. Level Four Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc.
Declaratory judgment; tortious interference with contract; personal jurisdiction.
Hope v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
In re Lennane
Whether an individual's leaving work was attributable to his employer as required by N.C.G.S. 96-14.5 (2021) to avoid disqualification for unemployment benefits.
Lake v. State Health Plan for Tchrs. & State Emps.
State employee retirees' health insurance benefits were deferred compensation offered as part of an employment contract that can be modified by statute but cannot be substantially impaired. Plaintiffs' evidence failed to show that the plaintiff class as a whole suffered substantial impairment in their contractual rights.