Petitions for Discretionary Review

GavelThe petition tracker has been updated with the Supreme Court’s most recent rulings on petitions for discretionary review.  The Court accepted three new civil cases dealing with various topics such as charter schools, municipal development ordinances, and evictions.  The Court will also be reviewing a juvenile delinquency case and (via a petition for writ of certiorari) another TPR case.  As always, we will keep you updated as new developments occur.… Continue Reading

Finally found time to blog on one of my favorite topics: exceptions and qualifications to the error preservation requirements of Appellate Rule 10! (Um, I heard those groans!).  A few weeks ago the North Carolina Supreme Court issued two new opinions shedding additional light on this semi-fascinating topic.

Under the Statutory Mandate Exception to Appellate Rule 10, Trial Judges Generally are Not Required to Supervise the Conduct of “Outside” State Actors

In re E.D.Continue Reading

Today we’re introducing a new feature for the blog: the petition tracker. You can check out the petition tracker page here, or by clicking on “Petitions Allowed” in the banner at the top of any page on the blog.

Although our state constitution says that the “courts shall be open,” open hasn’t always meant “clear.” Before we created this feature, we realized that it wasn’t easy to track the cases pending at the Supreme Court.… Continue Reading

The Supreme Court released a batch of orders today, denying review in many cases (as usual) but also granting review in six cases. These six grants—the first from the new Beasley Court—cover issues ranging from federal immigration enforcement by local law enforcement agencies to defamation and Batson challenges.

First up are the habeas petitions of two immigrants detained by the sheriff of Mecklenburg County.… Continue Reading

In October 2018, I gave a CLE presentations with (now recently sworn in) Judge Allegra Collins: “Life Preservers on the Titanic: Issues Not Properly Preserved for Appellate Review.”  Part of the presentation posed this question: Can the General Assembly enact a rule or law that automatically preserves certain issues for appellate review?  At the time, the answer to that question was as follows:

  • Yes
Continue Reading

Last Friday was a blockbuster appellate day for the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Not only did it effectively declare an appellate jurisdiction statute unconstitutional (see Matt’s blog post), but Justice Newby authored a concurring opinion inspired by “It’s a Wonderful Life.”  (“Was Old Man Potter simply morally corrupt or was he also guilty of a crime?”).

For North Carolina’s appellate defenders, however, Friday was not a wonderful day.… Continue Reading

On Wednesday, the General Assembly overrode the Governor’s veto of House Bill 239.  Against opposition from the bench and the bar, the legislature pushed the court-shrinking bill through on a mostly partyline vote.  The override votes came on the heels of a remarkable move by retiring Judge Douglas McCullough–a registered Republican–who reportedly retired a month early to avoid having his seat eliminated by the bill.… Continue Reading

On occasion, the Supreme Court of North Carolina will grant a petition for discretionary review and then later decide that the grant was “improvidently allowed.” See, e.g., here and here and here. The U.S. Supreme Court sometimes reaches the same result.

Because these opinions usually provide little, if any, explanation, we are often left to guess at the basis for the court’s decision.… Continue Reading

Last week I wrote about the Court of Appeals’ holding in  SED Holdings, LLC v. 3 Star Properties, LLC regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court while an interlocutory appeal is pending.  See here.  A few weeks prior, before the SED II opinion was released, Mack Sperling provided some excellent insight on his blog as to what was happening in the trial court in SED and how the court’s jurisdiction was impacted by the Petition for Discretionary Review that defendants had filed (and that was subsequently allowed) regarding the Court of Appeals’ decision in SED I. … Continue Reading