Latest 8 Cases: Chisum v. Campagna (Antitrust & Trade Regulation), State v. Corbett (Civil Rights), State v. Ditenhafer (Criminal Law)

The Oprah Interview as a Truth Commission

LESLEY WEXLER

Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler explains how Oprah’s interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle might illuminate how a formal truth commission to deal with legacies of racism and colonialism might function in the British empire. Professor Wexler describes the purpose and function of state-operated truth commissions and notes the similarities and differences between those and the interview.

Read More

Chisum v. Campagna

Docket: 406A19

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Ervin

Areas of Law: Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Business Law

In this appeal arising from a dispute concerning the parties' respective membership interests in three related LLCs the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court, holding that none of Defendants' challenges to the trial court's judgment and related orders had merit and that, with one exception, the same was true of Plaintiff's challenges to the judgment and orders. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims for conversion, unfair and deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, a declaration that he continued to own interests in each of the LLCs and a claim seeking judicial dissolution of the LLCs. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff as to certain claims and in favor of Defendants as to other claims. The parties cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court erred in deciding to direct a verdict in favor of Defendants with respect to Plaintiff's claims related to Carolina Coast Holdings, LLC; and (2) the remaining claims on appeal were without merit.

State v. Corbett

Docket: 73A20

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Earls

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendants' convictions of second-degree murder and ordering a new trial, holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error in excluding evidence that was highly relevant as to Defendants' self-defense claims. Defendants, Thomas Martens and his daughter, Molly Corbett, were found guilty of murdering Molly's husband, Jason Corbett. During trial, Defendants maintained that they had lawfully used deadly force to defend themselves while under a reasonable apprehension that they were facing an imminent threat of deadly harm during an interaction initiated by Jason. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial, holding that the trial court erroneously excluded certain evidence, thus depriving Defendants of their ability to present a full and meaningful defense.

State v. Ditenhafer

Docket: 126A18-2

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Ervin

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for felonious obstruction of justice, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence that Defendant acted with deceit and intent to defraud to support her conviction. Defendant's daughter had been sexually abused by Defendant's husband. Defendant's conviction arose from her actions in interfering with the ability of social workers and law enforcement officers to have access to her daughter. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. The court of appeals upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record evidence provided sufficient support for a jury to find that Defendant precluded investigating officials from accessing her daughter with deceit and the intent to defraud.

State v. Fuller

Docket: 447A19

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Berger

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court ordering Defendant to register as a sex offender under N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-202(l), holding that the evidentiary facts supported the trial court's ultimate fact that Defendant was a danger to the community. Defendant pled guilty to secret peeping pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-202(d). The trial court placed Defendant on supervised probation and ordered him to register as a sex offender. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order requiring Defendant to rester as a sex offender, concluding that the trial court's finding that Defendant was a "danger to the community" was supported by competent evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in affirming the trial court's order requiring Defendant to register as a sex offender based on the finding that he was a danger to the community.

In re N.P.

Docket: 280A19

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Morgan

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her daughter, Nancy, holding that the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction concerning Nancy under the plain language of the Juvenile Code. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because neither Mother, Nancy, nor Father were residents of North Carolina and because any temporary emergency jurisdiction the trial court may have obtained had expired prior to the time the termination of parental rights petition was filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had exclusive, original jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1101.

In re Q.P.W.

Docket: 475A19

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Robin E. Hudson

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the trial court properly found that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), (3), (6), and (7), determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of her child's cost of care, dependency, and willful abandonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings supported the trial court's conclusion that Mother failed to make reasonable progress under the circumstances to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal.

In re Z.J.W.

Docket: 178A20

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Ervin

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and vacated in part the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor child, holding that the trial court erred by determining that Father's parental rights in his child were subject to termination. The trial court terminated Father's parental rights in his child, finding that grounds for termination existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (7). Father appealed, challenging the trial court's determination that grounds for terminating his parental rights existed. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order in part and vacated it in part, holding (1) the trial court's determination that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of abandonment and neglect by abandonment lacked sufficient support; and (2) the trial court's determination that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of prior neglect and the likelihood of a repetition of neglect was based on a misapplication of the applicable law.

JVC Enterprises, LLC v. City of Concord

Docket: 31PA20

Opinion Date: March 12, 2021

Judge: Robin E. Hudson

Areas of Law: Utilities Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the City of Concord and dismissing Plaintiffs' claims of illegal fees, holding that the language of a series of local acts unambiguously granted the City of Concord the authority to levy water and wastewater connection fees against Plaintiffs for services to be furnished. In 2004, Concord adopted an ordinance requiring residential subdivision developers to pay fees for water and wastewater service before a subdivision plat would be accepted for recording. In 2016, the ordinance was updated so that the fees were due at the time of acquiring a permit. Plaintiffs, developers who paid water and wastewater connection fees to the City, brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the fees were ultra vires because the City could not collect fees prior to furnishing sewer and water services to Plaintiffs' subdivisions. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact with respect to the City's legislative authority to charge fees for services "to be furnished" by the City.