Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs' claim with prejudice under Rule 41(b).

Whether plaintiff's statement regarding grounds for appellate review adequately apprised the Court of Appeals as to how the trial court's order affected a substantial right.

Whether the trial court's alleged failure to adhere to N.C.G.S. 7B-1105's timing mandates prejudiced respondent father such that his appeal was preserved notwithstanding his failure to object at the trial court and whether subsequently filing an amended petition to terminate parental rights and serving respondent father with summons rendered any alleged noncompliance with N.C.G.S. 7B-1105 irrelevant.

Whether plaintiffs' constitutional claims challenging the Certificate of Need law are facial or as-applied challenges and whether the claims are subject to exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Whether exigent circumstances existed to provide an exception to the warrant requirement for a warrantless blood draw.

Whether a trial judge's finding of aggravating factors in violation of N.C.G.S. 20-179(a1)(2) may be reviewed for harmless error.

Whether an interpretive rule in Orange County's zoning ordinances resolves any potential ambiguity between the applicable ordinance's text and a corresponding table.

Whether this Court can review issues raised in a Court of Appeals dissent that were not raised or argued by the parties.

Whether a developer was entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims of a homeowner who suffered injury when she fell through her ceiling after stepping backwards in her attic without looking.

Summary judgment was proper in an eminent domain action when the trial court resolves all pleaded issues associated with property rights taken as of the date of the taking.

Whether Nationwide effectively cancelled plaintiffs' fire insurance policy in line with N.C.G.S. 58-44-16(f)(10).

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the trial court's adjudications of neglect and dependency and remanding for dismissal of the juvenile petitions.

Whether defendants' counterclaim alleged colorable constitutional claims under the Fruits of Their Labor Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the North Carolina Constitution sufficient to overcome the State's claim of sovereign immunity.

Defendant was properly indicted for multiple counts of human trafficking per victim. Further, although the trial court erred by failing to consider the substantial similarity of defendant's offenses pursuant to N.C.G.S. 15A-1340-14(e), the error did not prejudice defendant.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon and in granting the defendant a new trial on the charge of first-degree murder.

Whether Chapter 17 of the General Statutes requires summary denial of an application to prosecute the writ of habeas corpus when the applicant is detained by virtue of a final judgment of a competent court of criminal jurisdiction.

Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that defendant did not have the right to use excessive force under the castle doctrine.