Appellate Court Opinions

Slip opinions (court's decision in a case) filed and written by the justices of the Supreme Court or judges of the Court of Appeals

Search Case Summaries / Headnotes.
View PDF Volumes.

35,725 Appellate Court Opinions

, Supreme Court , 25A13 (Justice Robert Edmunds Jr.) , Published
Minor v. Minor

Summary ejectment action; counterclaim by defendant based on adverse possession; whether the trial court committed reversible error when it declined to instruct jurors that they could find that defendant possessed part, but not all, of the property at issue

, Supreme Court , 243PA12 (Justice Robert Edmunds Jr.) , Published
N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v Cully's Motorcross Park, Inc.

Whether information given by an insurance investigator to police regarding a loss caused by arson should subject the insurer to liability for malicious prosecution and for an unfair and deceptive trade practice; extent of immunity provided to insurer under N.C.G.S. ? 58-79-40 and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine

, Supreme Court , 358A12 (Per Curiam) , Published
State v. Boyd

Whether the trial court committed plain error by erroneously instructing the jury on an alternate theory to support a conviction for second-degree kidnapping when that theory was not supported by the evidence

, Supreme Court , 493A12 (Per Curiam) , Published
State v. Kochuk

Motion to suppress evidence of DWI; whether police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle

, Supreme Court , 510A12 (Per Curiam) , Published
State v. Land

Whether an indictment charging defendant with delivery of marijuana under N.C.G.S. ? 90-95(a)(1) was fatally defective because it did not state the weight of the marijuana; ineffective assistance claim based on defense counsel's failure to request jury instructions, the omission of which was found not to constitute plain error

, Supreme Court , 48PA11-2 (Justice Mark Martin) , Published
State v. Rhodes

Appeal from trial court's order granting defendant's MAR following his convictions; whether trial court abused its discretion in determining that defendant met his burden to establish newly discovered evidence meriting a new trial.