Amicus Briefs

stripes

Amicus briefs are a powerful weapon in the fight for fairness.

The troubles and hardships of an individual plaintiff or criminal defendant can often expose the flaws and weaknesses in our judicial system. When that happens, and the gears of the appellate machine begin to turn, the amicus brief helps train a spotlight on specific systemic and legal problems.  

If you have a case that presents a new or unresolved question of law, and its resolution may have a broad impact on your area of practice, consider engaging us to participate as amicus. The amicus brief program is available for state and federal court cases. NCAJ is often an additional voice to help the courts understand the policy issues and highlight the impacts outside of a specific case. 

NCAJ filed its first amicus brief in 1978. In the decades since, NCAJ volunteers have written hundreds of amicus briefs, filed in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. These opinions have focused attention on civil rights, workers’ rights, the rights of the bereaved, the rights of the insured, the rights of criminal defendants, immigrants’ rights and land holders’ rights.

Be sure to explore the robust database of amicus briefs and their outcomes from the organization dating back to 2019 below.

Engage NCAJ to Participate as Amicus

Complete the Form

Bartlett v. Burke

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Guy W. Crabtree
Amicus Brief Writers Matthew Berthold Noah Abrams
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 312P22

This is a products liability case arising from the fatal crash of a medevac helicopter in North Carolina. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction, but the Court of Appeals reversed. NCAJ provided an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs’ Petition for Discretionary Review.

Morris v. Rodeberg, et al

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Matthew D. Ballew James A. Barnes IV Ryan D. Oxendine
Amicus Brief Writers Gagan Gupta Sam McGee
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 296A22

A 13-year-old child was injured during an appendectomy. He filed suit after his 18th birthday pursuant to the tolling provisions of N.C.G.S. § 1-17(b). Defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that N.C.G.S. § 1-17(c) required Plaintiff to file suit within three years of his injury. Effectively, Defendants’ argument was that the statute of limitations expired while Morris was still a minor. The Court of Appeals majority agreed, and Plaintiff appealed pursuant to the dissent.

 

Washington, et al. v Cline, et al.

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Bob Ekstrand
Amicus Brief Writers Christopher Heaney S. Luke Largess
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 48PA14-2

In this case, the NCAJ joined with the ACLU of NC to support plaintiff Frankie Washington in his appeal to the state Supreme Court. The amicus brief urges the Court to protect the ability of all North Carolinians to vindicate their fundamental constitutional rights.

State v. Darrell Tristan Anderson

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Kathryn L. Vandenberg
Amicus Brief Writers Christopher Heaney Emily Gibson Margaret Teich
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 23A21

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the NC Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Darrell Anderson, Mr. Riley Conner, and Mr. James Kelliher. Each of them pled guilty to crimes committed as juveniles, including homicide and other offenses, and received consecutive sentences that did not make them parole eligible until their sixties. The Court of Appeals held that Mr. Kelliher’s sentences were a violation of the Eighth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution because they did not give him a meaningful opportunity for release as required by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 176, L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012). In contrast and over Chief Justice Linda McGee’s dissent, the Court of Appeals held that Mr. Conner’s and Mr. Anderson’s sentences were not an Eighth Amendment violation.

Graham v. Lambert, et al

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Joe Tunstall
Amicus Brief Writers Abraham Rubert-Schewel
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 113A22

A law enforcement officer struck and killed a pedestrian while responding to a call. The officer was both speeding and (according to body cam footage) distracted by his in-car computer at the time of the collision. Other officers were set to arrive before the officer in question, who was responding on a non-emergency basis without his sirens or blue lights activated.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the issue of gross negligence. Although the trial court denied this motion, the Court of Appeals reversed. Plaintiff appealed based on a dissent, and a subsequent PDR filed by Defendants was granted on an issue related to the sufficiency of the pleadings regarding waiver of immunity.

NCAJ filed an amicus brief on the gross negligence issue. Citing statistics about the dangers of both speeding and distracted driving, NCAJ argued that the combination of these two factors is particularly dangerous. The brief contends that the gross negligence issue should be decided by a jury where the officer “is not in an emergency situation, is not using his lights or sirens, is speeding, deviates from his lane of travel multiple times, and is repeatedly distracted by an electronic device, including at the time of impact.”

 

State v. Marzouq

Opinion Filed December 03, 2019
Attorney for the Case Jim Melo
Amicus Brief Writers Raul Pinto Helen Parsonage
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 19-471

The North Carolina Advocates for Justice, along with the North Carolina Justice Center, filed an amicis brief in the NC Court of Appeals on behalf of Mr. Ali Awni Said Marzouq.  Mr. Marzouq, a legal permanent resident of the United States, pled guilty to two drug related charges.  His criminal defense attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly advise Mr. Marzouq of the consequences his plea would have on his immigration status.

Hamlet H.M.A. v. Hernandez

Opinion Filed December 06, 2019
Attorney for the Case Mark Hayes
Amicus Brief Writers Laura Wetsch Jon Wall
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 425A18

When the North Carolina Legislature enacted, and then amended, the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), it made clear that the statute’s intent was to broadly cover commercial activities.  However, in response to legislator concerns that the UDTPA not create another cause of action for malpractice claims, the UDTPA expressly exempted “professional services rendered by a learned professional.”  Thus, a doctor or a lawyer cannot be sued under the UDTPA for injury caused by the professional services they provide to their patients or clients.

Rouse v. Forsyth County

Opinion Filed February 28, 2020
Amicus Brief Writers John Gresham Travis Payne
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 1PA19

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the NC Supreme Court arguing that the Court of Appeals decision completely ignored provisions of N.C.G.S. 126 , the State Human Resources Act (SHRA), that specifically authorize an administrative law judge to award employees covered by the SHRA back pay and attorney’s fees when it is determined that the employee was illegally fired.

State v. Golder

Opinion Filed April 03, 2020
Attorney for the Case Anne Bleyman
Amicus Brief Writers John Carella Glenn Gerding Ivy Johnson
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 79PA18

NCAJ recently filed amicus curiae briefs in two criminal cases pending before the North Carolina Supreme Court – State v. Golder and State v. Smith. In both cases, the Court of Appeals denied review of meritorious arguments on the sufficiency of the evidence because, at trial, defense counsel supplemented a general motion to dismiss with a specific argument. Under one recent line of Court of Appeals case law, defense counsel’s oral argument “narrowed” the general motion to dismiss, which would otherwise have preserved a challenge to every element of the crime.

Chappell v. NCDOT

Opinion Filed May 01, 2020
Attorney for the Case Matthew Bryant
Amicus Brief Writers Shiloh Daum Joan Davis
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 51PA19

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the NC Supreme Court urging the justices to affirm a Cumberland County jury’s verdict and post-trial rulings that compensated landowners for by takings by NCDOT pursuant to the “Map Act”.  The Map Act prohibited the improvement, subdivision, and development of land located within certain protected corridors that were set aside for future NCDOT road projects.  DOT did not acquire their land through condemnation, however,  which left owners trapped for decades and unable to sell or fully benefit from their assets as their property values plummeted.  The Court previously ruled in Kirby v. DOT that the Map Act’s restrictions constituted a taking.

Vincent v. AMCO

Opinion Filed August 04, 2020
Attorney for the Case John Loftin
Amicus Brief Writers Shawn Howard Jay Trehy Jon Ward
Court 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
Docket No. 19-1401

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of a catastrophically injured small business owner. The Plaintiff suffered life changing injuries, including multiple broken bones, internal organ injuries, and a traumatic brain injury, when his motorcycle was struck by a negligent motorist.

Ha v. Nationwide

Opinion Filed August 14, 2020
Attorney for the Case John Kirby
Amicus Brief Writers Erwin Byrd
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 312A19

Plaintiffs, who had recently contracted and paid for homeowners’ insurance, lost their home to a fire.  The homeowners called their insurer, Nationwide, and were notified for the first time that their insurance policy had been cancelled two months prior.  At trial, Nationwide argued that mailing the cancellation notice via regular mail satisfied N.C.G.S. § 58-41-15(c), which requires the insurance company to “furnish” notice of cancellation of insurance policies in existence for sixty days or fewer.  The trial court agreed, but the Court of Appeals determined that the Legislature, with N.C.G.S. § 58-41-15(c), intended to require the insurance company to prove delivery, rather than mere mailing, of the cancellation notice.

Da Silva v. WakeMed, et. al.

Opinion Filed August 14, 2020
Attorney for the Case Gregory Kash
Amicus Brief Writers Stephen Gugenheim Anna Pishko Kalarites
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 326PA18

A woman who suffered injuries that resulted from the negligent prescription of Levaquin. The trial court excluded Plaintiff’s sole expert, Dr. Paul Genecin, an internal medicine physician, after finding that Dr. Genecin did not qualify under N.C. Rule E. 702(b) because he was not of the “same specialty” as the hospitalist defendants and, although he was of a “similar specialty,” he did not spend the majority of his professional time in the clinical practice of hospital medicine.  The trial court also held that Dr. Genecin’s testimony on proximate cause was legally insufficient.  As a result of the trial court’s findings, summary judgment was rendered for defendant.

State v. Smith

Opinion Filed August 14, 2020
Attorney for the Case Jason Yoder
Amicus Brief Writers John Carella Glenn Gerding Ivy Johnson
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 119PA18

NCAJ recently filed amicus curiae briefs in two criminal cases pending before the North Carolina Supreme Court – State v. Golder and State v. Smith. In both cases, the Court of Appeals denied review of meritorious arguments on the sufficiency of the evidence because, at trial, defense counsel supplemented a general motion to dismiss with a specific argument. Under one recent line of Court of Appeals case law, defense counsel’s oral argument “narrowed” the general motion to dismiss, which would otherwise have preserved a challenge to every element of the crime.

Saunders v. Hull Prop. Grp., LLC

Opinion Filed September 15, 2020
Attorney for the Case David Stradley
Amicus Brief Writers Burton Craige Narendra Ghosh Trisha S. Pande Patricia Timmons-Goodson
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 19-728

This case squarely presents the issue of whether the North Carolina Supreme Court should abandon the harsh and antiquated defense of contributory negligence, and adopt the modern doctrine of comparative fault. In this premises liability case, the trial judge rejected plaintiff’s timely request for a jury instruction on comparative fault.

Savino v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

Opinion Filed September 25, 2020
Attorney for the Case Kent Brown Jon Moore
Amicus Brief Writers Burton Craige Narendra Ghosh Trisha S. Pande
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 18PA19

In Savino v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, a wrongful death action, the jury found the hospital liable for medical and administrative negligence and awarded $5,500,000 in non-economic damages. The Court of Appeals overturned the verdict on administrative negligence and vacated the award of non-economic damages. NCAJ submitted an amicus brief in support of plaintiff’s successful petition for discretionary review. In the Supreme Court, NCAJ’s amicus brief addressed two issues.

Parkes v. Hermann

Opinion Filed December 18, 2020
Attorney for the Case Adam Melrose Mark Melrose
Amicus Brief Writers D. Hardison Wood Charles Monnett, III
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 241PA19

This case presents the issue of whether North Carolina recognizes the “lost chances” theory of recovery in medical malpractice actions.

In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff was experiencing symptoms consistent with early onset of stroke.  She was taken to the emergency room.  Despite her presentation of stroke-like symptoms, her physician did not order administration of tPA within a three hour window, as required by the standard of care.  According to the only expert testimony in the record, had the tPA been promptly administered, the plaintiff would have had an ~40% chance of recovery with no significant morbidities.  By failing to administer the tPA, the defendant obliterated these chances.  At summary judgment, the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because her chances were not above 50%.

NC Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co v. Martin

Opinion Filed December 18, 2020
Attorney for the Case Jeffrey Breit
Amicus Brief Writers Paul Coates Ann Ochsner Jon Ward
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 391A19

This brief addresses the applicability of UIM coverage to “residents” of the same “household” in the context of multiple structures located on a family farm.

Gay v. Saber Healthcare Group, L.L.C., et al.

Opinion Filed March 12, 2021
Attorney for the Case Rebecca Britton Rachel Fuerst
Amicus Brief Writers Narendra Ghosh
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 190A20

This case presents the issue of whether skilled nursing facilities owe a fiduciary duty to their patient-residents. Because skilled nursing facilities are healthcare providers, they should be held to the same fiduciary duty that the Supreme Court announced in King v. Bryant. A fiduciary duty for skilled nursing facilities is consistent with federal and state laws and regulations, which recognize that these institutions are entrusted to care for a uniquely vulnerable population. In addition, the purported arbitration agreement in this case is unenforceable. The document does not state that the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes and lacks all other essential terms. There was simply no meeting of the minds to arbitrate.

Griffin v. Absolute Fire Control, Inc.

Opinion Filed March 12, 2021
Attorney for the Case Christian Ayers
Amicus Brief Writers Erwin Byrd Stewart Poisson
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 29A20

This is a workers’ compensation case that involves issues pertaining to disability and suitable employment.  One method that an injured worker may use to prove disability involves a showing that it would be futile due to age, limited education, inexperience or other factors for the injured worker to search for work.  Here, Mr. Griffin continued to work for Absolute in light duty work but alleged that the job was not suitable employment and that he was disabled.  The Full Industrial Commission held that Mr. Griffin presented “no evidence” of futility of jobs search, even though he presented uncontested evidence that he was 49 years of age; had only a ninth grade education; had only ever worked in construction and pipefitting; had restrictions of no lifting greater than 20 pounds, amongst others, which disabled him from pipefitting; and that he needed to leave work at times due to pain.  His treating physician had also recommended vocational rehabilitation which the Commission found had not yet been provided.

Armento v. Asheville Buncombe Community Christian Ministry, Inc

Opinion Filed April 21, 2021
Attorney for the Case Carol Brook Clermont Ripley
Amicus Brief Writers Kevin Murphy Travis Payne
Court 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
Docket No. 20-1100

The plaintiff is asking the 4th Circuit to interpret the North Carolina Wage Hour Act. The NCWHA is very similar to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and judges often use case law from the FLSA to guide interpretation of the NCWHA. NCAJ’s amicus could educate the Court about the interaction between the two statutes, the background and policy behind the NCWHA, and any ways in which the WDNC decision might diverge from current NC case law. We want the court to get the law right, and this is an area where our members’ expertise would be valuable.

Town of Apex v. Rubin

Opinion Filed May 04, 2021
Attorney for the Case Matthew Nis Leerberg Kenneth C. Haywood Joan Davis
Amicus Brief Writers R. Susanne Todd Maisha M. Blakeney Shiloh Daum Jonathan D. Guze
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 20COA-304 & 20COA-305

The companion amicus briefs submitted to the Court of Appeals are for a pair of cases defending the constitutional mandate that condemnation must require a public use or benefit, and that condemnors cannot assert inverse condemnation as an offensive claim to take private property. The John Locke Foundation joined NCAJ on the briefs to support the arguments to preserve the fundamental rights of property owners.

State v. Daw

Opinion Filed May 04, 2021
Attorney for the Case Jim Melo Rob Heroy
Amicus Brief Writers Erwin Byrd
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 20-680

In its amicus brief to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, NCAJ argued that the writ of habeas corpus in North Carolina is available to prisoners who are subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. NCAJ contended that the spread of COVID-19 through North Carolina’s prisons, the demonstrated inability of the Department of Public Safety to protect inmates from the deadly virus, and the particular susceptibility to coronavirus of habeas petitioner Philip Daw, who suffers from asthma and other severe respiratory illnesses, are a sufficient basis for granting habeas review.  Rather than granting such review, or any hearing of any kind, the Superior Court of Wake County summarily denied Mr. Daw’s habeas petition, on the grounds that NC General Statute section 17-4 prohibits habeas relief for anyone confined pursuant to a final judgment of a competent court with jurisdiction.

Deminski v. The State Board Of Education, et al.

Opinion Filed June 11, 2021
Attorney for the Case Troy D. Shelton Matthew Nis Leerberg
Amicus Brief Writers Mark Dorosin Elizabeth Haddix Maria Perry
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 60A20

The issues presented in Deminski that were addressed in the NCAJ’s brief were: (1) whether the right to education, as guaranteed under Article I, Section 15 of the North Carolina Constitution, includes the right to access a sound basic education (SBE); (2) whether a violation of the education right unrelated to the characteristics of a SBE is actionable; and (3) whether sovereign immunity is available to government actors as a defense to a Section 15 claim.

NC Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co, Inc. v. Lunsford

Opinion Filed August 13, 2021
Attorney for the Case Jason Burton
Amicus Brief Writers Jon Moore Doug Maynard
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 242A20

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the North Carolina Supreme Court in support of the Defendant-Insured in a declaratory judgment action instituted by the Defendant’s automobile insurance company. The Defendant-Insured was severely injured in a motor vehicle collision caused by the driver of the vehicle in which she was a passenger. This at-fault driver was insured by a Tennessee liability policy with $50,000 in liability coverage and $50,000 in Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage. The Defendant-Insured had $50,000 in UIM coverage under her own auto policy issued by NCFB.

Butterfield v. Gray

Opinion Filed October 05, 2021
Attorney for the Case Noah Abrams Rachel Fuerst
Amicus Brief Writers Matthew D. Ballew Karonnie Truzy
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 20-218

This case involved the egregious death of a jail inmate who was experiencing a known psychotic episode and, rather than provide him the medical care and protection required by law, the Sheriff and his deputies allowed him to slowly die of dehydration and starvation of a period of three weeks with no medical.

Copeland v. Amward Homes Of N.C., Inc., et al.

Opinion Filed October 29, 2021
Attorney for the Case William Bystrynski
Amicus Brief Writers Erwin Byrd Jon Ward
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 56PA20

NCAJ filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the plaintiffs, parents of a young boy who was killed by an unattended, runaway dump truck in the Hillsborough planned community where the family lived.  Parts of the housing development were still under construction, and the dump truck rolled from a lot that was being graded for building across the street from plaintiffs’ home.

Rural Empowerment Ass’n for Cmty. Help v. State of N.C

Opinion Filed December 21, 2021
Attorney for the Case Elizabeth Haddix Mark Dorosin Burton Craige Narendra Ghosh Christopher A. Brook
Amicus Brief Writers Matthew D. Ballew
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 21-175

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the N.C. Court of Appeals arguing that two recent tort reform statutes were facially unconstitutional. By way of background, this case arises from the recent “hog farm” litigations and jury trials against Smithfield, the largest pork producer in the world. In those litigations, multiple homeowners and residents in eastern NC counties living nearby to open air hog waste cesspools – (euphemistically called “lagoons”) filed lawsuits against Smithfield alleging common law nuisance claims under NC law. These plaintiffs sought recovery for noneconomic damages that have been allowed under the nuisance common law for hundreds of years, e.g. loss of enjoyment of their homes, discomfort, and annoyance damages. In five straight jury trials conducted in the EDNC, before five different juries, each set of plaintiffs won multimillion verdicts against Smithfield for both compensatory and punitive damages.

Miller v. LG Chem, Ltd.

Opinion Filed February 01, 2022
Attorney for the Case Sarah Willingham
Amicus Brief Writers Andrew Schwaba Adam Langino
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. 20-687

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the North Carolina Court of Appeals advocating for creating a qualified right to jurisdictional discovery once a prima facie case of jurisdiction has been shown. NCAJ argued that the trial court erred by denying Plaintiff’s counsel and opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery to contest the Defendants’ contention it was not subject jurisdiction in North Carolina. The trial court did not rule on Plaintiff’s motion to overrule Defendants’ objections to his jurisdictional-based discovery. Instead, in reaching its conclusion, the trial court relied on a 30(b)(6) deposition of the Defendants from another matter and an affidavit of Plaintiff’s counsel.

Nay v. Cornerstone Staffing Solutions, et al.

Opinion Filed February 11, 2022
Attorney for the Case Kathleen Sumner
Amicus Brief Writers Michael Bertics Stewart Poisson
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 409PA20

Nay v. Cornerstone concerns the proper method for calculating the average weekly wages of employees of temporary employment agencies. The Industrial Commission elected to divide the wages earned over roughly 13 weeks by 52 weeks resulting in a relatively minimal average weekly wage. The NCAJ offered amicus assistance at the Court of Appeals level.

Cunningham v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., et al.

Opinion Filed May 06, 2022
Attorney for the Case Kathleen Sumner
Amicus Brief Writers Michael Bertics Vernon Sumwalt
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 465A20

Before considering the merits of a controversy, courts must first determine if they have the legal capacity to hear the controversy. Courts can answer this question at all levels, even for the first time on appeal, and earlier cases have held that our appellate courts can do so without restraint from what inferior courts have already determined. So, when a majority of the Court of Appeals in Cunningham v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. reversed the Industrial Commission’s dismissal on the assumption that the Commission did not have jurisdiction, the question was whether our appellate courts were bound by the facts found by the Commission or if they could look at the facts with fresh eyes.

State v. James Ryan Kelliher

Opinion Filed June 17, 2022
Attorney for the Case Kathryn L. Vandenberg
Amicus Brief Writers Christopher Heaney Emily Gibson Margaret Teich
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 442PA20

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the NC Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Darrell Anderson, Mr. Riley Conner, and Mr. James Kelliher. Each of them pled guilty to crimes committed as juveniles, including homicide and other offenses, and received consecutive sentences that did not make them parole eligible until their sixties. The Court of Appeals held that Mr. Kelliher’s sentences were a violation of the Eighth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution because they did not give him a meaningful opportunity for release as required by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 176, L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012). In contrast and over Chief Justice Linda McGee’s dissent, the Court of Appeals held that Mr. Conner’s and Mr. Anderson’s sentences were not an Eighth Amendment violation.

State v. Riley Dawson Conner

Opinion Filed June 17, 2022
Attorney for the Case Andrew DiSimone
Amicus Brief Writers Christopher Heaney Emily Gibson Margaret Teich
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 64A21

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the NC Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Darrell Anderson, Mr. Riley Conner, and Mr. James Kelliher. Each of them pled guilty to crimes committed as juveniles, including homicide and other offenses, and received consecutive sentences that did not make them parole eligible until their sixties. The Court of Appeals held that Mr. Kelliher’s sentences were a violation of the Eighth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution because they did not give him a meaningful opportunity for release as required by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 176, L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012). In contrast and over Chief Justice Linda McGee’s dissent, the Court of Appeals held that Mr. Conner’s and Mr. Anderson’s sentences were not an Eighth Amendment violation.

Keith v. Health-Pro Home Care Services, Inc.

Opinion Filed June 17, 2022
Attorney for the Case Jeremy Wilson
Amicus Brief Writers Vernon Sumwalt David Stradley
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 33A21

Trial judges are empowered with sound discretion to instruct juries as efficiently and comprehensively as they choose, as long as doing so is not legal error and will cover all disputed issues of fact in a case. In Keith v. Pro-Health, a majority of the Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict favoring the plaintiff and insisted—as a matter of law—that the trial judge should have instructed on negligent hiring instead of the instruction given for ordinary negligence, even though…

Buckley LLP v Series 1 of Oxford Insurance Company, NC, LLC

Opinion Filed August 19, 2022
Attorney for the Case James P. Cooney, III
Amicus Brief Writers Paul Smith Laura Wetsch Narendra Ghosh
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 219A21

NCAJ filed an amicus brief with the North Carolina Supreme Court addressing employers’ obligation to disclose communications with outside counsel related to investigations into alleged sexual harassment. The Employer in question was required under its own policies to investigate any complaint of sexual harassment, and when a complaint was raised, chose to retain a law firm to conduct the investigation. It then sought to avoid disclosing any communications with counsel regarding the investigation by asserting attorney-client privilege. The trial court reviewed each of the communications at issue, and required disclosure of all that were unrelated to seeking or providing legal advice. The Employer appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. In its amicus brief, NCAJ argued that the trial court applied the correct standard, and that employers should not be permitted to avoid their disclosure obligations by laundering an internal business investigation through outside counsel.

NC NAACP v. Moore, et. al

Opinion Filed August 19, 2022
Attorney for the Case Kimberley Hunter
Amicus Brief Writers Doug Abrams Noah Abrams Matthew Lee
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 261A18-3

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the North Carolina Supreme Court in support of the North Carolina State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”). The trial court had determined that legislation proposing constitutional amendments meant to entrench the political party in power was void because (a) the General Assembly proposing it was the result of illegal racial gerrymandering and (b) without that illegal racial gerrymandering, the legislature would never have met the constitutionally-required threshold to propose a constitutional amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed, with a dissent by Judge Reuben Young, and the NAACP appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

State v. Rogelio Albino Diaz-Tomas

Opinion Filed November 04, 2022
Attorney for the Case Anton Lebedev
Amicus Brief Writers Tom Maher Erwin Byrd
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 54A19-3

NCAJ filed amicus curiae briefs supporting the defendants in these two cases currently before the N.C. Supreme Court. The briefs argue that prosecutors’ decisions not to reinstate certain criminal cases to the district court docket must be subjected to judicial review. The defendants in these cases were initially charged with driving while impaired in Wake County. When each did not appear in court, prosecutors decided to dismiss the cases with leave, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-932. Both defendants’ drivers’ licenses were revoked by the DMV, pursuant to another N.C. statute concerning failure to appear, and both defendants were subsequently charged with driving while license revoked.

State v. Edgardo Gandarilla Nunez

Opinion Filed November 04, 2022
Attorney for the Case Nicholas Woomer-Deters
Amicus Brief Writers Erwin Byrd Tom Maher
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 255PA20

NCAJ filed amicus curiae briefs supporting the defendants in these two cases currently before the N.C. Supreme Court. The briefs argue that prosecutors’ decisions not to reinstate certain criminal cases to the district court docket must be subjected to judicial review. The defendants in these cases were initially charged with driving while impaired in Wake County. When each did not appear in court, prosecutors decided to dismiss the cases with leave, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-932. Both defendants’ drivers’ licenses were revoked by the DMV, pursuant to another N.C. statute concerning failure to appear, and both defendants were subsequently charged with driving while license revoked.

Schaeffer v. Singlecare

Opinion Filed April 06, 2023
Attorney for the Case Joseph Hjelt Michael Kornbluth
Amicus Brief Writers Jennifer Spyker Lauren Newton Melissa Abrams Sam McGee
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 321PA21

NCAJ writes in support of the plaintiff, most of whose claims against defendants, his out-of-state employers, were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The brief argues that jurisdiction should have been exercised in the interests of public policy, given the rise of remote work in NC. It also argues that the COA’s decision contravenes the State’s statutes governing jurisdiction and the recent US Supreme Court decision in Ford Motor Co.

Molè v. City of Durham

Opinion Filed April 06, 2023
Attorney for the Case Travis Payne
Amicus Brief Writers Narendra Ghosh Trisha S. Pande
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 394PA21

Sturdivant v. N.C. Dept. of Public Safety

Opinion Filed April 18, 2023
Attorney for the Case Stewart Poisson
Amicus Brief Writers Joshua Harper Michael Bertics Richard Harper
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. COA22-421

State v. Saldana

Opinion Filed Pending
Amicus Brief Writers Christopher Heaney
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. COA 23-51

Miller v. LG Chem, Ltd.

Opinion Filed June 16, 2023
Attorney for the Case Sarah Willingham
Amicus Brief Writers Andrew Schwaba Noah Abrams Stacy Miller
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 69A22

Sprouse v. Turner Trucking Company

Opinion Filed June 16, 2023
Attorney for the Case Scott W. Roberts
Amicus Brief Writers Michael Bertics Jay A. Gervasi Jr.
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 51A22

Betts v. N.C. Dept. of Health and Human Services

Opinion Filed July 05, 2023
Attorney for the Case Robert V. Lucas Sarah Ellerbe Vernon Sumwalt
Amicus Brief Writers Michael Bertics Richard Harper Joshua Harper
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. COA22-324

N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hebert

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Preston W. Lesley
Amicus Brief Writers Jon Ward Paul Coates Doug Maynard
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 281A22

Land v. Whitley, et al.

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Bruce Berger MaryAnne Hamilton
Amicus Brief Writers Elizabeth Todd Matthew Berthold Jenny Maynard
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. COA23-250

Ivey v. United States  

Opinion Filed Pending
Amicus Brief Writers Andy Banzhoff
Docket No. 22-7784

Canteen v. Charlotte Metro Credit Union   

Opinion Filed Pending
Amicus Brief Writers Christopher Edwards Jordan Godwin Rachel Fuerst Taylor Rodney
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 10A23

Armstrong v. Hutcheson, et al

Opinion Filed September 13, 2023
Amicus Brief Writers Narendra Ghosh S. Luke Largess Carlos E. Mahoney
Court 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
Docket No. No. 22-1082
Status Rehearing denied Oct. 11, 2023

Cullen v. Logan Developers, Inc.    

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Meredith Hinton
Amicus Brief Writers Ann Ochsner Gabriel Zeller
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 155PA23

Orsbon as GAL for Bosworth-Jones v. City of Charlotte, et al     

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case John Chilson W. Thompson Comerford Zachary Harris
Amicus Brief Writers Amiee Nwabuike David Stradley
Court NC Court of Appeals
Docket No. COA23-1170

Town of Apex v. Beverly L. Rubin

Opinion Filed Pending
Attorney for the Case Joan Davis Kenneth C. Haywood Matthew Nis Leerberg Troy D. Shelton
Amicus Brief Writers R. Susanne Todd Shiloh Daum
Court NC Supreme Court
Docket No. 410PA18-2 and 206PA21

The Town of Apex sought to condemn Rubin’s land for the purpose of installing a sewer line. The town commenced its condemnation action and began construction on the line, but the trial court held that there was no public purpose and therefore no right to take the property. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, and the Supreme Court denied the town’s Petition for Discretionary Review. Thus, it is the established law of the case that the town had no right to take the land. While Rubin sought post-judgment relief in the original action, the town filed a separate action claiming it took the property by inverse condemnation, a doctrine which only exists for property owners to obtain fair compensation for condemnations, not as an alternative means for the government to take land. In any event, despite the prior ruling that there was no right of condemnation, Apex has simply refused to leave Rubin’s land.

This time the trial court ruled in favor of the town. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and once again held there was no right to condemn, but stopped short of ordering Apex to vacate. Instead, the court indicated that Rubin could file a separate trespass action. The Supreme Court granted cross petitions for discretionary review.

NCAJ, which had previously filed a brief in the Court of Appeals, filed an amicus brief contending that the Court of Appeals was correct that the Town of Apex had no right to take Rubin’s land, especially through its creative and baseless contortions of the doctrine of inverse condemnation. When the previous efforts at condemnation failed, title to the property immediately vested with Rubin, such that the town had no rights in the property at all. Given that Rubin owns the land and the town has no right to be there, the town should be ordered to leave. The original action was never terminated, as Rubin sought post-judgment relief and the court retained in rem jurisdiction over the property itself, which was undisturbed by Apex filing a subsequent action. Thus, the town can be ordered to leave without yet another lawsuit being filed. Moreover, the town’s actions demonstrate a disturbing disrespect for the judiciary and the finality of its judgments, which should be addressed by the Court.