Whether the trial court's permanency-planning order complied with N.C.G.S. 7B-903, -906.1, and -906.2 of the Juvenile Code.

Whether restaurant closures necessitated by government orders responding to the COVID-19 crisis amounted to a direct physical loss for the purposes of business income and commercial property insurance coverage.

Whether N.C.G.S. 105-135.45 is ambiguous regarding application of the term credit allowed when calculating tax credits available to manufacturers of cigarettes for exportation.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent municipality properly denied petitioner's applications for permits necessary to build a charter school.

Whether defendant was properly sentenced to death on two counts of first-degree murder.

Whether defendant waived his statutory right to a court-ordered competency evaluation and hearing when he failed to raise the issue at trial.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of Section 97-29(c) of the Workers' Compensation Act and in affirming the Industrial Commission's opinion and award denying plaintiff extended compensation benefits under that provision.

Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding (1) defendants' use of a reasonable planning period not to exceed 20 years when assessing impact fees and (2) whether a 2016 reduction in impact fees was due to reasons other than an updated school impact fee study.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs' claim with prejudice under Rule 41(b).

Whether plaintiff's statement regarding grounds for appellate review adequately apprised the Court of Appeals as to how the trial court's order affected a substantial right.

Whether the trial court's alleged failure to adhere to N.C.G.S. 7B-1105's timing mandates prejudiced respondent father such that his appeal was preserved notwithstanding his failure to object at the trial court and whether subsequently filing an amended petition to terminate parental rights and serving respondent father with summons rendered any alleged noncompliance with N.C.G.S. 7B-1105 irrelevant.

Whether plaintiffs' constitutional claims challenging the Certificate of Need law are facial or as-applied challenges and whether the claims are subject to exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Whether exigent circumstances existed to provide an exception to the warrant requirement for a warrantless blood draw.

Whether a trial judge's finding of aggravating factors in violation of N.C.G.S. 20-179(a1)(2) may be reviewed for harmless error.

Whether an interpretive rule in Orange County's zoning ordinances resolves any potential ambiguity between the applicable ordinance's text and a corresponding table.

Whether this Court can review issues raised in a Court of Appeals dissent that were not raised or argued by the parties.

Whether a developer was entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claims of a homeowner who suffered injury when she fell through her ceiling after stepping backwards in her attic without looking.

Summary judgment was proper in an eminent domain action when the trial court resolves all pleaded issues associated with property rights taken as of the date of the taking.