Whether the Due Process Clause permits the trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state corporate and individual defendants based on business-related activities that the defendants conducted in North Carolina.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that a jury's guilty verdict was ambiguous and whether N.C.G.S. ss 14-17(b)(1) requires a criminal defendant to be sentenced for a Class B2 felony when there is evidence introduced at trial that the defendant engaged in an inherently dangerous act or omission, done in such a reckless and wanton manner as to manifest a mind utterly without regard for human life and social duty and deliberately bent on mischief.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was no error in the trial court's order finding that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky.

Whether the trial court's order on remand finding no Batson violation was clear error.

Whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law suffice to support the trial court's order of attorneys' fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. 6-21.5 (2021).

Whether North Carolina's Real Property Marketable Title Act exempts all restrictive covenants pertaining to a general or uniform scheme of development that restricts property to residential use.

Whether plaintiffs Cedarbrook Residential Center and Fred Leonard stated valid claims for negligence on the part of defendant North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services based upon the manner in which it inspected and took regulatory action against plaintiffs' adult care facility, whether any such claim is barred by sovereign immunity, and whether the public duty doctrine is available to defendant as an affirmative defense.

Whether the trial court properly rejected the General Assembly's Remedial Congressional Plan and accepted the General Assembly's Remedial House Plan and Remedial Senate Plan.

Whether the trial court's order finding that a law imposing a photo identification requirement for voters violates the equal protection guarantee of Art. I section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution was supported by evidence in the record and properly applied governing legal standards.

Whether the record evidence and the trial court's findings of fact support its decision that respondent should have been involuntarily committed for additional inpatient mental health treatment.

Whether the trial court violated respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal in an involuntary commitment proceeding when the State did not appear and the trial court elicited evidence to support committing respondent.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying, without explanation, the city's Motion to Modify Restrictions.

Whether the trial judge violated respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal in an involuntary commitment proceeding by calling a witness and eliciting testimony to support committing respondent when counsel for the State did not appear.

Whether the trial court violated respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal in an involuntary commitment proceeding when the State did not appear and the trial court elicited evidence to support committing respondent.

Whether the trial court properly verified that a juvenile's permanent custodial placement (1) understood the legal significance of the child's placement within the home and (2) possessed the appropriate resources to serve as a permanent placement. Whether the trial court properly eliminated reunification as a permanent plan.

Whether respondent-parent's counsel was properly allowed to withdraw when, under the totality of the circumstances, the record reflected no notice to respondent-parent that his counsel could withdraw based upon his failure to appear at permanency planning hearings.

Whether the trial court violated respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal in an involuntary commitment proceeding when the State did not appear and the trial court elicited evidence to support committing respondent.

Whether the trial court violated respondent's confrontation right by incorporating the report of a non-testifying physician into its findings of fact and whether the trial court's findings were sufficient to support its involuntary commitment order.

Whether a deceased employee's prior filing of a workers' compensation claim is sufficient to invoke the Industrial Commission's jurisdiction over a dependent's subsequent claim for death benefits under N.C.G.S. 97-24.