BEASLEY , Justice . We consider whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing in part the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant. We reverse that decision by the Court of Appeals. Plaintiff Stephanie L. Needham (Plaintiff Needham) and defendant had been involved in a long-term domestic relationship but they separated before 20 November 2009 when the events described below occurred. The couple had three children during the course of the relationship, all of...
PER CURIAM . For the reasons stated in Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., ___ N.C. ___, 781 S.E.2d 1 , 2015 WL 9263839 (2015) (375A14), the decision of the trial court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Justice EDMUNDS concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons stated in his opinion in Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., ___ N.C. ___, 781 S.E.2d 1 , 2015 WL 9263839 (2015) (375A14). Justice HUDSON and Justice BEASLEY concur in part and dissent in part...
PER CURIAM . For the reasons stated in Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., ___ N.C. ___, 781 S.E.2d 1 , 2015 WL 9263839 (2015) (375A14), the decision of the trial court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Justice EDMUNDS concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons stated in his opinion in Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., ___ N.C. ___, 781 S.E.2d 1 , 2015 WL 9263839 (2015) (375A14). Justice HUDSON and Justice BEASLEY concur in part and dissent in part...
PER CURIAM . For the reasons stated in Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., ___ N.C. ___, 781 S.E.2d 1 , 2015 WL 9263839 (2015) (375A14), the decision of the trial court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Justice EDMUNDS concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons stated in his opinion in Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., ___ N.C. ___, 781 S.E.2d 1 , 2015 WL 9263839 (2015) (375A14). Justice HUDSON and Justice BEASLEY concur in part and dissent in part...
PER CURIAM . For the reasons stated in Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2015 WL 9263839 (2015) (375A14), the decision of the trial court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Justice EDMUNDS concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons stated in his opinion in Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., ___ N.C. ___, S.E.2d ___, 2015 WL 9263839 (2015) (375A14). Justice HUDSON and Justice BEASLEY concur in part and dissent in part for the...
NEWBY , Justice . In this case we consider whether plaintiffs, individual investors in undeveloped real estate, may recover against a bank and its appraisers for their alleged participation in a scheme to defraud investors by artificially inflating property values in the years preceding the national real estate crisis. Plaintiffs allege, essentially, that they would not have purchased certain real property but for faulty appraisal information and that, in any event, the bank should have...
PER CURIAM . For the reasons stated in the majority opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. We remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court so that additional proceedings may be held not inconsistent with the opinion. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
JACKSON , Justice . On 4 August 2009, Thomas Wetherington (petitioner) was dismissed from the North Carolina State Highway Patrol (the Patrol) for alleged violations of the Patrol's truthfulness policy. The State Personnel Commission (SPC) determined that petitioner's dismissal was supported by just cause. Petitioner filed for judicial review in Superior Court, Wake County, and the superior court reversed, concluding that petitioner's "misconduct... did not amount to just cause for...
NEWBY , Justice . Following the 2010 Decennial Census, the General Assembly of North Carolina enacted redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives, and for the North Carolina districts for the United States House of Representatives. Plaintiffs challenge the legality of these plans, arguing that they violate the Constitutions of the United States and of North Carolina, controlling federal statutes, and applicable decisions of the Supreme Court of the United...
PER CURIAM . For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. REVERSED.
ERVIN , Justice . In this case we are required to determine whether defendants North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Incorporated a/k/a North Carolina Baptist Hospital and Wake Forest University Health Sciences (collectively, "defendants NCBH and WFUHS"), and defendants Terry Daniel, M.D. and Dayspring Family Medicine Associates, PLLC (collectively, "defendants Daniel and Dayspring") were required to obtain the issuance of subpoenas directed to certain individuals who had been identified as...
JACKSON , Justice . In this case we consider whether a zoning officer may refuse to transmit an appeal from his own zoning determination to the county board of adjustment for its review. We conclude that a zoning officer does not have this authority and therefore that the Superior Court, Warren County, properly entered an order compelling respondents to place petitioner's appeal on the agenda of the Warren County Board of Adjustment (the Board). Morningstar Marinas (petitioner) owns land...
JACKSON , Justice . In this case we consider whether non-mortgagor guarantors of a loan may raise the anti-deficiency defense set forth in section 45-21.36 of the North Carolina General Statutes in order to reduce their outstanding indebtedness to the primary borrower's lender. In addition, we consider whether the primary borrower properly was joined in the action. We hold that joinder was proper and that, irrespective of the primary borrower's presence in the litigation, guarantors may...
PER CURIAM . Justice ERVIN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. See, e.g., Goldston v. State, 364 N.C. 416 , 700 S.E.2d 223 (2010). AFFIRMED.
NEWBY , Justice . In this case we consider whether a plaintiff may recover against his bank for its failure to provide a government-backed business loan when, after learning no such loan was available, plaintiff sought and obtained a new commercial loan with the same bank and subsequently expressly waived all offsets and defenses. Plaintiff's claims arise in contract and in tort, and all of them rely upon one key date: the date on which plaintiff was made aware no government-backed loan was...
JACKSON , Justice . In this case we consider whether the Board of Law Examiners (the Board) erred by concluding that petitioner Lynn Marie Burke "failed to carry her burden of proving she possesses the requisite general fitness and good moral character expected of attorneys licensed to practice law in North Carolina." We conclude that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence in view of the whole record. Accordingly, we affirm. In May 2010, petitioner received her Juris...
JACKSON , Justice . In this case we consider whether the North Carolina Utilities Commission (the Commission) properly concluded that it is in the public interest to allow Aqua North Carolina (Aqua) to utilize a rate adjustment mechanism of the type described in section 62-133.12 of the North Carolina General Statutes. We conclude that the Commission's determination was based upon sufficient findings of fact and was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in view of the...
EDMUNDS , Justice . In this case, we consider whether our state's Public Records Act, N.C.G.S. 132-1 to -10 requires the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts to issue a copy of the Automated Criminal/Infraction System to a private party. We hold that N.C.G.S. 7A-109(d), addressing "remote electronic access" to court records, is a more specific statute that overrides applicability of the Public Records Act here. In addition, we conclude that the legislature intended that...
PER CURIAM . For the reasons stated in Hart v. State, ___ N.C. ___, ___, 774 S.E.2d 281 , 294, 2015 WL 4488553 (2015) (372A14), the decision of the trial court is reversed. REVERSED. Justice HUDSON, Justice BEASLEY, and Justice ERVIN dissent for the reasons stated in Justice Hudson's dissenting opinion in Hart v. State, ___ N.C. ___, ___, 774 S.E.2d 281 , 300-01 (2015) (372A14). Justice BEASLEY also dissents for the reasons stated in her dissenting opinion in Hart v. State, id. at...
MARTIN , Chief Justice . When assessing a challenge to the constitutionality of legislation, this Court's duty is to determine whether the General Assembly has complied with the constitution. If constitutional requirements are met, the wisdom of the legislation is a question for the General Assembly. E.g., In re Hous. Bonds, 307 N.C. 52, 57, 296 S.E.2d 281 , 284 (1982). In performing our task, we begin with a presumption that the laws duly enacted by the General Assembly are valid....
