Motion to compel arbitration; interlocutory appeal; substantial right

termination of parental rights, willful failure to make progress, safe and stable housing

Writ of Mandamus, North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, discretionary authority, separation of prisoners as to sex

pleading; misnomer; subject-matter jurisdiction; motion to dismiss; standing

sovereign immunity, money judgment, claim for relief

Domestic Violence Protective Order, findings of fact, ultimate facts, recitations of evidence

felonious possession of stolen goods; preservation; offer of proof; motion to dismiss; constructive possession; incriminating circumstances

motion to dismiss; first-degree murder; premeditation; deliberation; relevancy; Rule 404(b); Rule 403; closing arguments; self-defense; excessive force

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a land developer was not entitled to the benefit of permit choice based on its determination of application completeness and the existence of a now-expired moratorium.

Whether unacceptable personal conduct provided just cause for termination of a state employee.

Whether the Business Court erred in ruling that the parties' intrafamilial dispute fell outside the scope of their arbitration agreement with Charles Schwab.

Whether the federal PREP Act preempts all state law claims, including those brought under the state constitution.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of the University's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of contract claims.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's decision to classify a tract of land as defendant's separate property.

Whether defendant's J.E.B. claim is preserved and whether the claim was procedurally barred.

Whether the Court of Appeals conducted an appropriate review of the sentencing court's conclusion that defendant's sentence was constitutionally sufficient under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).

Whether the trial court complied with N.C.G.S. 15A-1242 where it informed a defendant who sought to proceed pro se only of the harshest sentences he faced and miscalculated the maximum sentence by two years, but both the potential sentence and the actual sentence amounted to life in prison.

Whether the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination of the State's expert witness.

Whether the trial court complied with N.C.G.S. 15A-1242 where it
informed a defendant of a miscalculated the maximum sentence.