de novo standard in North Carolina

2025“Under the de novo standard, this Court ‘considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.’” Id. at 551 , 825 S.E.2d at 695 (quoting State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628 , 632–33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

2025“Under the de novo standard, this Court ‘considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.’” Id. at 551 , 825 S.E.2d at 695 (quoting State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628 , 632–33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

2026“Under a de novo standard of review, this Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court.” Reese v. Mecklenburg Cnty., 200 N.C.

2026“Under a de novo standard of review, this Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court.” Reese v. Mecklenburg Cnty., 200 N.C.

2018"Under the de novo standard of review, [this Court] considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for the agency's." Id. at 660 , 599 S.E.2d at 895 (internal citations and marks omitted).

2018"Under the de novo standard of review, [this Court] considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for the agency's." Id. at 660 , 599 S.E.2d at 895 (internal citations and marks omitted).

2015"We review trial court orders granting or denying a summary judgment motion utilizing a de novo standard of review." Davis v. Woodlake Partners, LLC, 230 N.C.App. 88 , ----, 748 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2013) (citing In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569 , 573, 669 S.E.2d 572 , 576 (2008) ).

2015"We review trial court orders granting or denying a summary judgment motion utilizing a de novo standard of review." Davis v. Woodlake Partners, LLC, 230 N.C.App. 88 , ----, 748 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2013) (citing In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569 , 573, 669 S.E.2d 572 , 576 (2008) ).

2021“Under the de novo standard of review, the [Court] ‘consider[s] the matter anew[ ] and freely substitut[es] its own judgment for’ [that of the lower court].” Id. at 257 (alterations in original) (citation omitted). 16.

2019The appeal of a final decision of OAH in a contested case “arising from [a] summary judgment order[ ] [is] decided using a de novo standard of review.” Midrex Techs., 369 N.C. at 257 , 794 S.E.2d at 791 .

2017P'ship , 356 N.C. 642 , 647, 576 S.E.2d 316 , 319 (2003) ).

2017P'ship , 356 N.C. 642 , 647, 576 S.E.2d 316 , 319 (2003) ).

2019Standard of Review This Court "review[s] the issue of insufficiency of an indictment under a de novo standard of review." State v. Marshall , 188 N.C.

2018Additionally, this Court "review[s] the issue of insufficiency of an indictment under a de novo standard of review." State v. Marshall , 188 N.C.

2022In applying “the whole record test, [a] finding must stand unless it is arbitrary [or] capricious.” Id. at 16 , 565 S.E.2d at 19 . ¶ 22 When this Court reviews an order of the superior court relating to an agency decision, we examine the order for errors of law in a twofold process: “(1) determining whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review and, if appropriate, (2) deciding whether the court did so properly.” Id. at 14 , 565 S.E.2d at 18 . ¶ 23 In this case, it is clear the superior court correctly exercised the de novo standard of review in conducting its statutory int

2022In applying “the whole record test, [a] finding must stand unless it is arbitrary [or] capricious.” Id. at 16 , 565 S.E.2d at 19 . ¶ 22 When this Court reviews an order of the superior court relating to an agency decision, we examine the order for errors of law in a twofold process: “(1) determining whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review and, if appropriate, (2) deciding whether the court did so properly.” Id. at 14 , 565 S.E.2d at 18 . ¶ 23 In this case, it is clear the superior court correctly exercised the de novo standard of review in conducting its statutory int

2026“Under a de novo standard of review, this Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court.” Horne v. Town of Blowing Rock, 223 N.C.

2022“Under a de novo standard of review, this Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court.” Horne v. Town of Blowing Rock, 223 N.C.

2022Dallaire v. Bank of Am., N.A., 367 N.C. 363, 367 (2014).

2022Dallaire v. Bank of Am., N.A., 367 N.C. 363, 367 (2014).

2021“Under the de novo standard of review, the trial court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for the agency’s.” Wetherington v. North Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, 368 N.C. 583, 590 , 780 S.E.2d 543, 547 (2015) (“Wetherington I”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted).

2021“Under the de novo standard of review, the trial court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for the agency’s.” Wetherington v. North Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, 368 N.C. 583, 590 , 780 S.E.2d 543, 547 (2015) (“Wetherington I”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted).

2022PROVIDENCE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEP’T, INC. 2022-NCSC-100 Opinion of the Court See White v. Trew, 366 N.C. 360 , 362–63 (2013) (reviewing an appeal from a trial court order denying “a motion to dismiss that raises sovereign immunity as grounds for dismissal” utilizing a de novo standard of review).

2022PROVIDENCE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEP’T, INC. 2022-NCSC-100 Opinion of the Court See White v. Trew, 366 N.C. 360 , 362–63 (2013) (reviewing an appeal from a trial court order denying “a motion to dismiss that raises sovereign immunity as grounds for dismissal” utilizing a de novo standard of review).

2026A. Standard of Review This Court “appl[ies] a de novo standard when reviewing either a Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . .” Holton v. Holton, 258 N.C.

2025This court “appl[ies] a de novo standard when reviewing either a Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . .” Holton v. Holton, 258 N.C.

2026FULTON Opinion of the Court grant or deny a motion to dismiss based upon the doctrine of governmental or legislative immunity using a de novo standard of review.”); Irving v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 368 N.C. 609, 611 , 781 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2016) (“Questions of law regarding the applicability of sovereign or governmental immunity are reviewed de novo.”).

2026FULTON Opinion of the Court grant or deny a motion to dismiss based upon the doctrine of governmental or legislative immunity using a de novo standard of review.”); Irving v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 368 N.C. 609, 611 , 781 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2016) (“Questions of law regarding the applicability of sovereign or governmental immunity are reviewed de novo.”).

2024See Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority v. Sumner Hills Inc., 353 N.C. 343, 348 , 543 S.E.2d 844, 848 (2001) (“It is well settled that de novo review is ordinarily appropriate in cases where constitutional rights are implicated.”).

2024See Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority v. Sumner Hills Inc., 353 N.C. 343, 348 , 543 S.E.2d 844, 848 (2001) (“It is well settled that de novo review is ordinarily appropriate in cases where constitutional rights are implicated.”).

2022We therefore employ a de novo standard in our review. ¶ 10 “It is well settled ‘that a valid bill of indictment is essential to the jurisdiction of the trial court to try an accused for a felony.’” State v. Campbell, 368 N.C. 83, 83 , 772 S.E.2d 440 , 443 (2015) (quoting State v. Sturdivant, 304 N.C. 293, 308 , 283 S.E.2d 719, 729 (1981) (citations omitted)).

2022We therefore employ a de novo standard in our review. ¶ 10 “It is well settled ‘that a valid bill of indictment is essential to the jurisdiction of the trial court to try an accused for a felony.’” State v. Campbell, 368 N.C. 83, 83 , 772 S.E.2d 440 , 443 (2015) (quoting State v. Sturdivant, 304 N.C. 293, 308 , 283 S.E.2d 719, 729 (1981) (citations omitted)).

2021App. 99, 107 , 810 S.E.2d 397, 402 (2018) (noting that the Court applied a de novo standard of review “because determining whether the State’s experts’ testimonies constituted expert opinions . . . was a question” of law.) (citing State v. Davis, 368 N.C. 794 , 797- 98, 785 S.E.2d 312, 314-15 (2015)).

2021App. 99, 107 , 810 S.E.2d 397, 402 (2018) (noting that the Court applied a de novo standard of review “because determining whether the State’s experts’ testimonies constituted expert opinions . . . was a question” of law.) (citing State v. Davis, 368 N.C. 794 , 797- 98, 785 S.E.2d 312, 314-15 (2015)).

2026App. 528, 531 , 439 S.E.2d 199, 201 (1994). “[O]n appeal of the judgment of the superior court, this Court must apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether ‘the superior court committed error of law in interpreting and applying the municipal ordinance,’ and may also freely substitute its judgment for that of the superior court.” Hayes v. Fowler, 123 N.C.

2025App. 528, 531 , 439 S.E.2d 199, 201 (1994). “[O]n appeal of the judgment of the superior court, this Court must apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether ‘the superior court committed error of law in interpreting and applying the municipal ordinance,’ and may also freely substitute its judgment for that of the superior court.” Hayes v. Fowler, 123 N.C.

1996In like manner, on appeal of the judgment of the superior court, this Court must apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether “the superior court committed error of law in interpreting and applying the municipal ordinance,” Capricorn Equity Corp. v. Town of Chapel Hill, 334 N.C. 132, 137 , 431 S.E.2d 183, 187 (1993), and may also freely substitute its judgment for that of the superior court.

1996In like manner, on appeal of the judgment of the superior court, this Court must apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether “the superior court committed error of law in interpreting and applying the municipal ordinance,” Capricorn Equity Corp. v. Town of Chapel Hill, 334 N.C. 132, 137 , 431 S.E.2d 183, 187 (1993), and may also freely substitute its judgment for that of the superior court.

2026State v. Wilson, 236 N.C.

2026State v. Wilson, 236 N.C.

2026App. 324, 326 , 264 S.E.2d 802, 803 (1980) (appeal of superior court’s remand to a city council for a de novo hearing dismissed as interlocutory).

2019App. 324 , 326, 264 S.E.2d 802 , 803 (1980) (appeal of superior court's remand to a city council *394 for a de novo hearing dismissed as interlocutory).

2025“Under the de novo standard, this Court ‘considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.’” Id. at 551 , 825 S.E.2d at 695 (quoting State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628 , 632–33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

2025“Under the de novo standard, this Court ‘considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.’” Id. at 551 , 825 S.E.2d at 695 (quoting State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628 , 632–33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

2019This Court has stated, "If the issues raised by Defendant's challenge to [the trial court's] decision to deny his [MAR] are primarily legal rather than factual in nature, we will essentially use a de novo standard of review in evaluating Defendant's challenges to [the court's] order." State v. Jackson , 220 N.C.

2018Thus, "if the issues raised by Defendant's challenge to [the trial court's] decision to deny his [MAR] are primarily legal rather than factual in nature, we will essentially use a de novo standard of review in evaluating Defendant's challenges to [the court's] order." *354 Jackson , 220 N.C.

2017"Under the de novo standard of review, this Court 'considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the [trial court].' " Id. (quoting In re Appeal of the Greens of Pine Glen Ltd.

2014We review orders granting or denying summary judgment using a de novo standard of review, In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569, 573 , 669 S.E.2d 572, 576 (2008), under which “this Court ‘considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the [trial court].’ ” Burgess v. Burgess, 205 N.C.

2025State v. Graham, 200 N.C.

2020See State v. Graham, 200 N.C.