Appellate Court Opinions

Whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were violated when an expert witness gave her opinion, based on the testing performed by a non-testifying chemical analyst, that the substance was cocaine.

Whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were violated when an expert who did not conduct tests identifying a substance as cocaine testified to the results of a chemical analysis done by a non-testifying chemist

Whether an injured person may bring a civil action against a defendant pursuant to the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973's civil relief provision when the defendant has received notices of non-compliance, but has not been charged with a violation of a relevant law, rule, order, or erosion and sedimentation control plan.

Whether an action based on defendants' negligent storage of a firearm used by their 52-year-old adult son to shoot plaintiff should be dismissed for failure to state a claim

Divorce proceedings; appeal from series of orders resolving all issues except attorney's fees; Court of Appeals' dismissal of the appeal as interlocutory

Divorce action by North Carolina resident; application of Texas law to determine whether the parties met all requirements for a common law marriage in Texas

Materialman's lien statute; whether a person who had no legal or equitable interest in real property when the services at issue were contracted for, but later purchased the property, can be an owner for purposes of section 44A-8

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Whether defendant imposed a discriminatory dual rate structure in violation of N.C.G.S. ? 160A-314 when providing solid waste disposal, a public enterprise

Worker's Compensation; dispute over which workers' compensation insurance carrier is liable for payment to an employee of a subcontractor; application and interpretation of N.C.G.S. ?? 58-36-105 (required notice for cancellation of workers' compensation insurance), 58-36-110 (requirements for notifying policy holder of nonrenewal of insurance), and 97-19 (effect of general contractor?s not obtaining certificate of insurance from a subcontractor) when the subcontractor had workers' compensation insurance at the time of plaintiff's work-related accident

Whether an attorney removed from representing a client by the Clerk of Court for a conflict of interest can recover the value of her services in an action based on quantum meruit

Appeal from Commission order granting rate increase to electric power company; whether the order was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence

Plain error review; whether a defendant convicted of first-degree sexual offense should receive a new trial because the trial court did not also instruct the jury on attempted first-degree sexual offense