Review of recommendation for thirty-day suspension without pay.
Negligence action for a slip and fall on City-owned premises leased to a nonprofit entity; summary judgment granted for defendant based on governmental immunity; whether ownership and maintenance of the building was a governmental or proprietary function.
Appeal from sentence imposed in conjunction with a plea agreement; whether the trial court erred in accepting defendant's stipulation to a previous second-degree murder conviction as a Class B1 offense; application of State v. Sanders and State v. Wingate to determine whether the stipulation was to a question of fact or a question of law.
Whether, at defendant's trial for attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, the trial court committed prejudicial error by (1) declining to give certain jury instructions requested by defendant regarding 'no duty to retreat,' (2) denying a defense request to admit testimony from witnesses describing the victim's previous aggressive, violent acts towards others, and (3) denying defendant's motion for a continuance.
Motion to suppress evidence; whether the affidavit on which a warrant authorizing a search of defendant's property was based established probable cause to issue the warrant.
Appeal from conviction for driving a motor vehicle while having an open container of alcohol in the passenger compartment; whether the citation identifying the offense was a sufficient criminal pleading, standing alone, to give the superior court jurisdiction over the offense.
Appeal from defendant's convictions for trafficking in and manufacturing methamphetamine; whether the trial court committed plain error in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting.
Appeal from trial court's entry of summary judgment for plaintiff and subsequent order denying defendants' motion for reconsideration under Civil Procedure Rule 59; whether defendants' Rule 59 motion tolled the time period in Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) for filing an appeal from the summary judgment order; whether Rule 59 can provide relief from a summary judgment order or is limited to post-trial motions.
Appeal from trial court's refusal to release defendants from jail due to their continued failure to comply with conditions imposed in an order of civil contempt; whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's order when the trial court did not consider defendants' evidence that they are unable to comply with the contempt order, as required under N.C.G.S. 5A-21(a)(3).
Whether N.C.G.S. 15A-954(a)(9) establishes a procedure to hear a pretrial motion by a defendant to dismiss a murder charge based on the immunity provision of section 14-51.2, the 'castle doctrine.'
Whether the trial court erred in revoking defendant's probation under N.C.G.S. 15A-1344(f) after his probationary term expired; whether the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant willfully absconded probation in violation of N.C.G.S. 15A-1343(b)(3a) and whether the trial court abused its discretion in making that finding.
Whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting testimony from the State's expert in fingerprint identification that tied defendant to the crimes for which he was convicted.
Whether an indigent defendant made a sufficient showing of 'materiality' under N.C.G.S. 15A-269 to require the trial court to appoint counsel to assist with his post-conviction motion for DNA testing to support his claim of innocence.
Appeal from trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence; whether the warrantless search of the room in defendant's apartment in which contraband was found was constitutional; whether seizure of the contraband was permissible under the 'plain view' doctrine.
Whether defendant, who, along with two accomplices, participated in a series of armed robberies over a two- to three-hour period, engaged in a single conspiracy or in multiple conspiracies to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon.
Appeal from order consolidating cases; whether the judge who entered the order lacked authority to do so because a different judge presided over the matter at trial and whether, if so, the resulting procedural error requires vacatur of the judgment below.
Complaint alleging medical malpractice; whether plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 9(j) before expiration of the statute of limitations requires dismissal of the action if the complaint alleges facts sounding in ordinary negligence, for which a Rule 9(j) certification is not required.