In the latest batch of rulings from the N.C. Supreme Court, justices:

  • ruled unanimously in favor of a Chapel Hill property owner attempting to overturn a town decision that would have prevented construction of a home on a lot located largely in a “resource conservation district.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Edward Brady writes: “I write
separately to emphasize the importance of property rights and the
duty the government has to compensate individuals when it chooses
to take land for public use. I believe that respondents’ denial
of petitioners’ request for a variance not only violates the
provisions of the Chapel Hill Resource Conservation District
Ordinance (RCD Ordinance) because of respondents’ failure to
consider the effect of the restrictive covenants on the subject
property, but I also believe that the denial results in a de
facto taking, which requires respondents to provide just
compensation for petitioners’ land. As Justice Harlan aptly
stated over a century ago: ?Due protection of the rights of
property has been regarded as a vital principle of republican
institutions.? Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. Chicago,
166 U.S. 226, 235-36 (1897). This historic right can be traced
to the very earliest of our laws, and the courts have an
important responsibility to steadfastly protect against its
erosion.”

  • ruled 6-1 to reverse a decision from the N.C. Court of Appeals in the Durham County case of Kenneth Maready, who was convicted of murder after a drunk-driving traffic stop led to a fatal accident.
  • ruled 6-1 that neighbors of a proposed Raleigh development can proceed with a challenge of a city Special-Use Permit, thus reversing the Appeals Court. The decision indicates: “In this case we determine the circumstances under which
    an adjacent property owner or property owner in close proximity
    has standing to challenge a Board of Adjustment’s grant of a
    Special Use Permit.”
  • upheld a death sentence in one case, but sent another capital case back to Superior Court to address the defendant’s claim that he deserves a new trial because the judge in his original case did not realize he could deny the defendant’s request to represent himself.
  • upheld without comment an Appeals Court decision in a worker’s compensation suit involving Winston-Salem city government.
  • upheld by a 4-3 vote a lower-court ruling in a Medicaid-related dispute. Justices split on the proper way to respond to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case.
  • upheld with little comment an Appeals Court ruling in a Stanly County billboard dispute. 
  • offered a mixed verdict in a worker’s compensation case involving breast implant replacement.