When Can a North Carolina Court of Appeals Case Go to the North Carolina Supreme Court?

A North Carolina Court of Appeals case can reach the Supreme Court of North Carolina through a limited appeal of right involving a substantial constitutional question, a petition for discretionary review, exceptional certification before the Court of Appeals decides the case, or an extraordinary writ in appropriate circumstances. Most Court of Appeals decisions do not receive another automatic level of review.

A party ordinarily cannot obtain Supreme Court review merely by arguing that the Court of Appeals misunderstood the facts or reached the wrong result. The filing must establish a recognized jurisdictional route, satisfy strict timing and preservation requirements, and identify an issue that the Supreme Court may lawfully review.

The Answer Depends On…

Whether a North Carolina Court of Appeals case can proceed to the North Carolina Supreme Court depends on:

• Whether the decision directly involves a substantial federal or state constitutional question

• Whether that constitutional issue was timely raised and preserved

• Whether the case involves significant public interest

• Whether it presents legal principles of major significance to North Carolina jurisprudence

• Whether the Court of Appeals decision appears likely to conflict with a North Carolina Supreme Court decision

• Whether review is sought before or after the Court of Appeals decides the case

• Whether the Court of Appeals ruling is final or interlocutory

• Whether failure to obtain immediate review would likely cause substantial harm

• Whether a dissent or concurrence identifies an important legal problem

• Whether the Court of Appeals issued a published or unpublished opinion

• Whether rehearing or en banc review should be pursued first

• Whether the mandate has issued

• Whether enforcement must be stayed

• Whether the petition identifies every issue the party later wants to brief

• Whether the existing appellate record adequately presents the issue

• Whether an extraordinary writ is available because an ordinary review right was lost or does not exist

• Whether the case instead falls within a category that proceeds directly from the trial court to the Supreme Court

• Whether a preserved federal question may later support U.S. Supreme Court review

The Supreme Court is not required to accept a case merely because a petition for discretionary review presents a serious legal argument.

North Carolina Supreme Court Review at a Glance

Potential route	General basis
Appeal of right	The Court of Appeals decision directly involves a substantial question under the U.S. or North Carolina Constitution
Petition for discretionary review after decision	Significant public interest, major significance to North Carolina jurisprudence, or likely conflict with a Supreme Court decision
Discretionary review before Court of Appeals decision	Exceptional public-interest, jurisprudential, institutional, delay, or court-administration grounds
Review of an interlocutory Court of Appeals ruling	Failure to review would delay final adjudication and probably cause substantial harm
Writ of certiorari	An ordinary right was lost through untimely action, or review is sought of an order for which no ordinary review right exists
Supreme Court review on its own initiative	The Court may certify an eligible case without a party’s petition

The governing statutes are N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-30 and 7A-31, implemented principally through North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure 14, 15, and 16.

Route One: Appeal of Right Based on a Substantial Constitutional Question

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-30 currently provides an appeal of right from a Court of Appeals decision that directly involves a substantial question under the United States Constitution or North Carolina Constitution.

This route is narrower than simply asserting that a constitutional right was mentioned somewhere in the litigation.

A Rule 14 notice of appeal must identify:

• The Court of Appeals judgment being challenged

• The constitutional issue presented

• The specific constitutional articles and sections involved

• How the appellant’s constitutional rights were violated

• That the issue was timely raised in the trial court, if it could have been

• That the issue was raised in the Court of Appeals when appropriate

• Whether the issue was not decided or was decided incorrectly

What makes a constitutional question “substantial”?

The issue ordinarily should require meaningful interpretation or application of a constitutional provision and should be outcome-determinative or otherwise central to the Court of Appeals decision.

An appeal is less likely to qualify when:

• The constitutional argument is merely restated from an ordinary statutory or evidentiary claim

• Existing precedent already disposes of the issue

• The Court of Appeals did not decide the constitutional issue

• The issue was not preserved

• The constitutional theory is raised for the first time after the Court of Appeals decision

• Resolution of the constitutional question would not affect the judgment

Rule 14 requires particularity precisely because placing a constitutional label on an ordinary legal dispute does not automatically establish an appeal of right.

Can the other side challenge the appeal of right?

Yes. The opposing party may contend that the issue is not genuinely substantial, was not preserved, or does not directly arise from the Court of Appeals decision.

A prudent appellant may include or file a conditional petition for discretionary review with the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court can then consider discretionary review if it concludes that the purported constitutional appeal is not actually available as of right. The same procedure can be used to seek review of additional issues beyond the constitutional question.

A Court of Appeals Dissent No Longer Creates an Automatic Appeal of Right

North Carolina previously permitted an automatic appeal based on a dissent in the Court of Appeals. That provision was repealed effective July 1, 2023. The Supreme Court later amended Rules 14, 15, and 16 to conform to the statutory change.

Accordingly:

• A divided Court of Appeals opinion does not by itself create an appeal of right

• A unanimous decision may still qualify for discretionary review

• A dissent can still help identify legal uncertainty or jurisprudential importance

• The party ordinarily must establish a constitutional appeal or satisfy § 7A-31’s discretionary-review grounds

A dissent may strengthen the strategic case for discretionary review, but it is no longer an independent jurisdictional ticket to the Supreme Court.

Route Two: Petition for Discretionary Review After the Court of Appeals Decides the Case

The most common further-review route is a petition for discretionary review, often called a PDR.

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-31(c), the Supreme Court may certify a case for review after a Court of Appeals decision when:

1. The subject matter has significant public interest

2. The case involves legal principles of major significance to the jurisprudence of North Carolina

3. The Court of Appeals decision appears likely to conflict with a decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court

Significant public interest

A case may present significant public interest when its consequences extend beyond the immediate parties.

Potential examples include issues affecting:

• Government authority

• Constitutional rights

• Statewide business practices

• Public institutions

• Elections

• Education

• Healthcare

• Property rights

• Court administration

• Recurring civil procedures

• Large classes of North Carolina residents or entities

A dispute does not ordinarily become a significant-public-interest case merely because the amount at stake is large for the parties.

Legal principles of major significance

This ground focuses on the importance of the legal rule to North Carolina jurisprudence.

Potential indicators include:

• An issue of first impression

• An unclear or unsettled legal standard

• A recurring question affecting many pending cases

• A decision materially changing North Carolina law

• Confusion among trial courts

• A broad rule with unintended consequences

• A question involving the interaction of several statutes or doctrines

• A need for statewide guidance

The petition should explain why the issue matters to the legal system—not simply why the petitioner believes the panel committed error.

Likely conflict with a Supreme Court decision

The statutory conflict ground concerns a Court of Appeals decision that appears likely to conflict with a prior decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court.

The petition should identify:

• The controlling Supreme Court decision

• The rule stated in that decision

• The rule or analysis adopted by the Court of Appeals

• Why the two cannot be reconciled

• Why the inconsistency affected the outcome

A disagreement between two Court of Appeals panels may support an argument that the issue has jurisprudential importance, but § 7A-31(c)’s express conflict ground refers specifically to likely conflict with a Supreme Court decision.

What Does a Strong Petition for Discretionary Review Do?

Rule 15 requires a petition to state plainly and concisely the factual and legal basis for discretionary review and to identify every issue the petitioner seeks to present. A copy of the Court of Appeals opinion accompanies a post-decision petition. A separate supporting brief is not required.

A strong petition typically:

• Starts with the statutory ground for review

• Identifies the precise legal issue

• Explains why the issue exceeds the private interests of the parties

• Shows the statewide or jurisprudential consequences

• Accurately describes the Court of Appeals holding

• Identifies any conflict with Supreme Court precedent

• Demonstrates that the issue was preserved

• Explains why the case is a suitable vehicle

• Lists every issue the petitioner wants to brief if review is granted

The petition should not simply reproduce the Court of Appeals brief. The threshold question is why the Supreme Court should take the case.

What Arguments Are Usually Not Enough?

A petition is generally weaker when it argues only that:

• The Court of Appeals weighed the facts incorrectly

• The panel should have believed a different witness

• The decision was unfair to the petitioner

• The damages were substantial

• The panel misapplied settled law in a fact-specific manner

• The trial court record was complicated

• Another appellate panel might have ruled differently

• The petitioner wants a third opportunity to litigate the same arguments

The Supreme Court’s function at the PDR stage is selective. The petition should identify an issue of statewide, jurisprudential, or precedential significance under § 7A-31.

Does the Respondent File a Brief in Opposition?

The respondent may file a response within 10 days after service of the petition.

The response may explain:

• Why the statutory grounds are absent

• Why the case is factbound

• Why the Court of Appeals followed Supreme Court precedent

• Why the issue was not preserved

• Why an alternative ground supports the result

• Why the case is a poor vehicle

• What additional issues the respondent would seek to present if review is granted

Rule 15 does not permit an extension of the response deadline. The Supreme Court decides whether to certify the case from the petition, response, and any permitted Rule 28.1 amicus submissions, without oral argument at the petition stage.

Route Three: Discretionary Review Before the Court of Appeals Decides

Section 7A-31 also permits the Supreme Court, in exceptional circumstances, to certify a case before the Court of Appeals decides it.

Potential pre-decision grounds include:

• Significant public interest

• Legal principles of major significance to North Carolina jurisprudence

• Substantial harm likely to result from delay

• Appellate workload considerations requiring expedited administration

• An issue important to oversight of the jurisdiction and integrity of the court system

A party seeking pre-decision review generally must file the petition within 15 days after the appeal is docketed in the Court of Appeals. Certain administrative appeals may be certified only after the Court of Appeals has decided them.

This route is rare. The petition should explain why ordinary Court of Appeals review would be inadequate, harmful, or inconsistent with the effective administration of justice.

Can the Supreme Court Review an Interlocutory Court of Appeals Ruling?

Potentially, but the statutory standard is restrictive.

An interlocutory Court of Appeals determination—including an order for a new trial or further trial-court proceedings—will be certified only if the Supreme Court determines that failure to review it would delay final adjudication and probably cause substantial harm to a party.

The petition should identify:

• The precise interlocutory ruling

• What proceedings will occur without immediate review

• Why those proceedings would cause delay

• What substantial harm is likely

• Why later review after final judgment would be inadequate

• Whether a stay is needed

Mere litigation expense or dissatisfaction with a remand ordinarily should not be assumed to satisfy this demanding standard.

Route Four: Petition for Writ of Certiorari

North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 21 permits the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari in appropriate circumstances to review a Court of Appeals decision or order when:

• The right to pursue an appeal of right was lost through failure to take timely action

• The right to petition for discretionary review was lost through failure to act timely

• Review is sought of a Court of Appeals order for which no ordinary appeal right exists

The petition must be filed without unreasonable delay and explain why the extraordinary writ should issue.

Certiorari should not be treated as an automatic cure for a missed deadline. The rule states that the writ may issue in appropriate circumstances, leaving the decision to the Supreme Court’s discretion.

Are Some Cases Appealed Directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court?

Yes, but those cases do not travel from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

For example, qualifying final judgments in mandatory or discretionary complex Business Court cases proceed directly from the trial division to the Supreme Court under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27. Other specialized categories also may bypass the Court of Appeals.

Counsel should therefore determine at the beginning of an appeal whether jurisdiction belongs in:

• The North Carolina Court of Appeals

• The Supreme Court of North Carolina

• Another designated appellate route

Filing in the wrong appellate court can create avoidable jurisdictional and timing complications.

What Is the Deadline After a Court of Appeals Opinion?

The deadline is tied to the mandate, not simply the date of the opinion.

Ordinary mandate timing

Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court of Appeals clerk enters judgment and issues the mandate 20 days after the written opinion is filed.

Notice of appeal based on a constitutional question

A Rule 14 notice of appeal must be filed with both the Court of Appeals clerk and the Supreme Court clerk, served on the other parties, and generally completed within 15 days after the mandate is issued to the trial tribunal.

Petition for discretionary review

A post-decision Rule 15 petition likewise generally must be filed and served within 15 days after issuance of the Court of Appeals mandate.

Because the ordinary mandate issues 20 days after the opinion, the outside filing date often occurs approximately 35 days after the opinion. The actual mandate date—not an assumed calculation—controls.

How Do Rehearing and En Banc Review Affect the Deadline?

North Carolina’s post-opinion timing rules are unusual and require careful sequencing.

Panel rehearing under Rule 31

In a civil action, a petition for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the mandate issues. The petition must identify points of law or fact the court overlooked or misapprehended and include certifications from two qualifying North Carolina attorneys who were not counsel in the case and have no interest in it.

A timely Rule 31 petition tolls the time for filing a Rule 14 notice or Rule 15 petition. The full further-review period begins again when the Court of Appeals denies rehearing.

However, filing a notice of appeal or PDR waives the later right to seek panel rehearing and abandons an earlier pending rehearing petition.

En banc rehearing under Rule 31.1

A motion for en banc rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the Court of Appeals opinion is filed. En banc consideration is disfavored and ordinarily reserved for maintaining decisional uniformity or addressing a question of exceptional importance.

Denial of a timely en banc rehearing motion triggers the time for an appeal of right or petition for discretionary review. Filing the en banc motion does not automatically stay the mandate; a stay must be obtained.

The strategic choice matters

Counsel should decide whether to pursue:

• En banc rehearing

• Panel rehearing

• An appeal of right

• A petition for discretionary review

• A conditional PDR

• Immediate stay relief

These remedies have different deadlines and may affect or waive one another.

Can Another Party File Its Own PDR?

Yes.

When one party files a timely petition for discretionary review, another party may file its own petition within 10 days after the first petition was filed. The same cross-filing rule applies when one party files a timely notice of appeal of right.

The respondent also should identify in its Rule 15 response any additional issues it would seek to present if the Supreme Court grants review.

What Evidence Can the Supreme Court Consider?

The North Carolina Supreme Court ordinarily reviews the record already filed in the Court of Appeals.

For both appeals of right and discretionary review:

• The existing Court of Appeals record becomes the Supreme Court record

• The parties generally do not create a new evidentiary record

• New affidavits, testimony, exhibits, or factual theories ordinarily cannot be added simply because the case reached the Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court may independently identify deficiencies in the record and take appropriate action, including dismissal

The preservation and record-building work performed in the trial court and Court of Appeals therefore continues to control.

What Issues Will the Supreme Court Review?

Rule 16 states that review following a Court of Appeals decision is directed to errors of law in that decision.

Review generally is limited to:

• The issues identified in the Rule 14 notice of appeal

• The issues identified in the Rule 15 petition

• Additional issues properly identified in the Rule 15 response

• Issues properly presented in the new Supreme Court briefs

• Any further limitation imposed by the Supreme Court

A party should not omit an issue from the PDR and assume it can be added later in the merits brief.

What Happens If the Supreme Court Grants Review?

If the Supreme Court certifies a case after a Court of Appeals decision:

• The case is docketed in the Supreme Court

• The Court of Appeals transmits the existing record

• The appellant files a new Supreme Court brief generally within 30 days after docketing

• The appellee files a new brief generally within 30 days after service of the appellant’s brief

• The appellant may file a reply under Rule 28

• The case may be scheduled for oral argument

• The Supreme Court reviews the identified errors of law in the Court of Appeals decision

The Supreme Court may ultimately:

• Affirm the Court of Appeals

• Reverse the Court of Appeals

• Modify its reasoning

• Remand the case

• Order a new trial or other proceedings

• Resolve only selected issues

• Determine that review was improvidently allowed

Granting the petition begins the merits stage; it does not determine who will win.

What Happens If the Supreme Court Denies the PDR?

The Court of Appeals decision remains operative, and the case generally proceeds according to that decision and the mandate.

Depending on the result below, the parties may need to address:

• Enforcement of a judgment

• Collection

• Injunction compliance

• A new trial

• Additional findings

• Remand proceedings

• Attorneys’ fees and costs

• Settlement

• Preservation of a federal issue for U.S. Supreme Court review

The Supreme Court’s denial of discretionary review is not a merits opinion adopting every part of the Court of Appeals’ reasoning.

Does Seeking Supreme Court Review Automatically Stay the Case?

No.

Because the Court of Appeals mandate ordinarily issues before the Rule 14 or Rule 15 deadline expires, enforcement or remand activity may begin unless a stay is obtained.

Rule 23 permits a party seeking review of a Court of Appeals decision to apply directly to the Supreme Court for a writ of supersedeas when a notice of appeal or PDR has been—or will be—timely filed. No prior application to the Court of Appeals is required in that situation. The applicant also may request an immediate temporary stay while the Court considers supersedeas.

Stay issues may involve:

• Collection of a money judgment

• Possession of property

• Business ownership or control

• Injunction enforcement

• Disclosure of confidential information

• Contempt exposure

• A new trial

• Compliance with a government order

• Loss of appellate leverage

A petition for further review and a stay petition serve different purposes. Filing one does not automatically supply the other.

Can Amici Participate?

Potentially.

Rule 15 permits the Supreme Court to consider amicus submissions filed under Rule 28.1 when deciding whether to certify a case. Amicus participation may be useful when an organization, industry group, governmental entity, public-interest organization, or affected stakeholder can demonstrate statewide consequences not fully developed by the parties.

A useful amicus submission may address:

• Statewide practical consequences

• Institutional effects

• Industry practices

• Government administration

• Constitutional implications

• Recurring litigation

• The need for a uniform statewide rule

Amicus strategy should support the statutory basis for review rather than repeat the petitioner’s merits arguments.

Can the Case Later Reach the U.S. Supreme Court?

Potentially, when the case presents a preserved federal question and the state-court proceedings satisfy federal finality requirements.

Under current U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13, when a lower state-court judgment is subject to discretionary review by the state’s highest court, the federal certiorari period generally runs for 90 days after the state supreme court denies discretionary review. Different timing applies when the state supreme court issues a merits judgment or when rehearing is sought.

Potential U.S. Supreme Court issues should be identified early because later review may depend on:

• Preservation in the trial court

• Presentation in the Court of Appeals

• The state-law grounds for decision

• Whether the federal question was passed upon

• The finality of the state judgment

• Timely pursuit of available state review

A Practical First-48-Hour Framework After the Court of Appeals Decides

Step 1: Read every opinion

Review:

• The majority opinion

• Any concurrence

• Any dissent

• The judgment

• The docket entry

• The expected mandate date

Step 2: Identify every possible review route

Determine whether the case presents:

• A substantial constitutional question

• Significant public interest

• Major jurisprudential significance

• Likely conflict with Supreme Court precedent

• Grounds for en banc rehearing

• Grounds for panel rehearing

• Grounds for certiorari

• A potential federal question

Step 3: Calendar the separate deadlines

Calendar:

• 15 days from the opinion for en banc rehearing

• 20 days from the opinion for the ordinary mandate

• 15 days after mandate for the notice of appeal or PDR

• 15 days after mandate for civil panel rehearing

• 10 days for a response to a PDR

• Any enforcement, remand, or stay deadlines

Step 4: Audit preservation

Confirm where each proposed issue was raised and decided.

Step 5: Evaluate the appellate vehicle

Ask whether the issue presents statewide law or merely case-specific error.

Step 6: Review the record

Determine whether the existing record provides a clean vehicle for Supreme Court review.

Step 7: Decide whether rehearing helps or delays

Account for the waiver and tolling rules before filing.

Step 8: Evaluate stay relief

Determine what will happen once the mandate reaches the trial court.

Step 9: Identify potential amici

Consider whether stakeholders can add a statewide, institutional, historical, or industry perspective.

Step 10: Plan for every result

Prepare for:

• Review granted

• Review denied

• Appeal of right dismissed

• Rehearing granted

• Enforcement

• Remand

• U.S. Supreme Court review

What Are the Biggest Risks?

Assuming a dissent creates an automatic appeal

That statutory route was repealed in 2023.

Treating the PDR like a third appellate brief

The petition must establish why the case satisfies § 7A-31, not merely repeat alleged errors.

Missing the mandate-based deadline

The notice or PDR generally is due within 15 days after issuance of the mandate.

Confusing en banc and panel rehearing deadlines

En banc rehearing runs from the opinion. Civil panel rehearing runs from the mandate.

Filing further review and unintentionally abandoning rehearing

A timely Rule 14 notice or Rule 15 petition waives or abandons a Rule 31 rehearing petition.

Omitting an issue from the PDR

Rule 16 generally limits later Supreme Court review to properly identified issues.

Raising an unpreserved constitutional issue

Rule 14 requires the appellant to state that the constitutional issue was timely raised.

Assuming review stays enforcement

A separate supersedeas and temporary-stay strategy may be necessary.

Relying on new evidence

The Supreme Court generally reviews the existing Court of Appeals record.

Treating certiorari as a guaranteed cure

Rule 21 relief remains extraordinary and discretionary.

North Carolina Forum and Geographic Coverage

North Carolina Court of Appeals cases may originate from civil disputes throughout:

• Charlotte and Mecklenburg County

• Monroe and Union County

• Concord and Cabarrus County

• Gastonia and Gaston County

• Raleigh and Wake County

• Durham

• Greensboro and Guilford County

• Winston-Salem and Forsyth County

• Asheville and Buncombe County

• Wilmington and New Hanover County

• Cary, Chapel Hill, Matthews, Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson, and surrounding communities

The Court of Appeals is North Carolina’s intermediate appellate court, while the Supreme Court is the state’s highest court. The same statutes and appellate rules govern further review statewide.

Authority Block: North Carolina Supreme Court Review of Court of Appeals Cases

The principal authorities include:

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27: cases proceeding directly from the trial courts to the Supreme Court

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-30: appeal of right based on a substantial constitutional question

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-31: discretionary review before or after a Court of Appeals determination

• North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 14: constitutional appeals of right

• North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 15: petitions for discretionary review

• North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 16: scope of Supreme Court review

• North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 17: appeal bonds in civil cases

• North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 21: certiorari

• North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 23: supersedeas and temporary stays

• North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.1: amicus curiae participation

• North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 31: civil panel rehearing

• North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.1: en banc consideration

• North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 32: mandate timing

The current official codification of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure is dated September 2, 2025.

How Biazzo Law Approaches North Carolina Supreme Court Review

Biazzo Law evaluates further review from both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court perspectives.

The firm can assist businesses, individuals, organizations, general counsel, trial lawyers, appellate lawyers, amici, and referring counsel with:

• Immediate review of Court of Appeals opinions

• Appeals involving substantial constitutional questions

• Petitions for discretionary review

• Responses to petitions for discretionary review

• Conditional PDRs accompanying constitutional appeals

• Pre-decision certification

• Interlocutory discretionary review

• Rule 21 certiorari

• Panel rehearing

• En banc rehearing

• Supersedeas and temporary stays

• Mandate and enforcement analysis

• Preservation and record review

• New Supreme Court merits briefs

• Oral-argument preparation

• Amicus-curiae strategy

• Remand planning

• Federal-question preservation

• U.S. Supreme Court certiorari strategy

Biazzo Law combines North Carolina civil appellate practice, Fourth Circuit advocacy, emergency-injunction readiness, and U.S. Supreme Court and amicus experience. This appellate-aware perspective helps distinguish an ordinary request to correct error from a case that genuinely presents constitutional, statewide, jurisprudential, or precedential grounds for further review.

The firm can serve as lead further-review counsel, co-counsel with existing appellate counsel, emergency-stay counsel, amicus counsel, merits counsel, or limited-scope strategic counsel.

Related Biazzo Law Resources

• Parent service page: North Carolina Appellate Attorney and Civil Appeals

• Related guide: When Will the North Carolina Supreme Court Review a Civil Appeal?

• Related guide: How Can Dissents and Concurrences Change Further-Review Strategy?

• Contact page: Contact Biazzo Law

Frequently Asked Questions

Can every North Carolina Court of Appeals case go to the Supreme Court?

No. The case must qualify for an appeal of right, satisfy the discretionary-review statute, or fit an extraordinary review mechanism. Most Court of Appeals decisions receive no further state-court review.

Does a dissent in the Court of Appeals create an automatic appeal?

No. The former dissent-based appeal-of-right provision was repealed effective July 1, 2023. A dissent may support a PDR strategy, but it no longer creates an automatic Supreme Court appeal.

What are the grounds for a petition for discretionary review?

After a Court of Appeals decision, the principal grounds are significant public interest, legal principles of major significance to North Carolina jurisprudence, or a decision that appears likely to conflict with a North Carolina Supreme Court decision.

How long do I have to file a PDR?

A post-decision PDR generally must be filed and served within 15 days after the Court of Appeals mandate issues. The mandate ordinarily issues 20 days after the opinion unless the Court orders otherwise.

Can I appeal directly based on a constitutional issue?

Potentially. The Court of Appeals decision must directly involve a substantial federal or state constitutional question, and Rule 14 requires particularized identification and preservation of the constitutional issue.

Should I seek rehearing before filing a PDR?

That depends on the error, remedy, and timing. Filing a notice of appeal or PDR waives or abandons panel rehearing, while a timely Rule 31 rehearing petition tolls the further-review deadline until it is denied.

Does a PDR automatically stay the Court of Appeals decision?

No. A party may need to seek supersedeas and an immediate temporary stay under Rule 23 to prevent enforcement or remand activity.

Can the Supreme Court consider new evidence?

Ordinarily, no. The record filed in the Court of Appeals generally becomes the Supreme Court record. New factual materials usually cannot be added merely because further review is sought.

Schedule a Litigation Strategy Review

The period after a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision can involve overlapping opinion-based and mandate-based deadlines, difficult choices among rehearing and further review, and immediate enforcement risks.

The analysis should address constitutional jurisdiction, § 7A-31 grounds, preservation, the mandate, rehearing, en banc review, certiorari, the existing appellate record, supersedeas, amicus participation, and possible U.S. Supreme Court consequences.

Schedule a litigation strategy review to evaluate a North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion, substantial constitutional question, petition for discretionary review, response, rehearing motion, en banc request, certiorari petition, supersedeas, temporary stay, or potential North Carolina or U.S. Supreme Court strategy.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Supreme Court jurisdiction, appealability, discretionary review, rehearing, deadlines, stays, certiorari, and further-review strategy depend on the particular opinion, docket, record, issues, and procedural posture. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.