Whether North Carolina's Real Property Marketable Title Act exempts all restrictive covenants pertaining to a general or uniform scheme of development that restricts property to residential use.

Whether respondent-parent's counsel was properly allowed to withdraw when, under the totality of the circumstances, the record reflected no notice to respondent-parent that his counsel could withdraw based upon his failure to appear at permanency planning hearings.

Whether the trial court possessed jurisdiction to revoke a defendant's probation after the defendant's term of probation had expired.

Whether plaintiffs Cedarbrook Residential Center and Fred Leonard stated valid claims for negligence on the part of defendant North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services based upon the manner in which it inspected and took regulatory action against plaintiffs' adult care facility, whether any such claim is barred by sovereign immunity, and whether the public duty doctrine is available to defendant as an affirmative defense.

Whether the admission of testimony describing the alleged victim's account as 'rock solid' constituted plain error.

Whether the record evidence and the trial court's findings of fact support its decision that respondent should have been involuntarily committed for additional inpatient mental health treatment.

Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for the second of two counts of first-degree kidnapping given that the indictment alleged that defendant had confined, restrained, and removed the victim for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a first-degree rape.

Whether the facts alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint were sufficient to establish standing to challenge the City's removal of a Confederate monument from privately owned property located in downtown Winston-Salem.

Whether the trial court violated respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal in an involuntary commitment proceeding when the State did not appear and the trial court elicited evidence to support committing respondent.

Whether the trial court violated respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal in an involuntary commitment proceeding when the State did not appear and the trial court elicited evidence to support committing respondent.