North Carolina Court of Appeals: IWM-B Unpublished Opinion Cites Rule 30(e)(3)

• The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion in In re: I.W.M.-B. on August 19, 2026.
• Unpublished opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals do not constitute controlling legal authority but may be cited under specific circumstances.
• Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure permits citation of unpublished opinions in certain cases.

Although not binding precedent, the opinion may still be cited under specific circumstances outlined in Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

A recent unpublished opinion from the North Carolina Court of Appeals has sparked caution among lawyers regarding citation practices. The opinion, In re: I.W.M.-B., was issued on August 19, 2026, in Wake County case number 24JA000025-910. Although not binding precedent, the opinion may still be cited under specific circumstances outlined in Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The court's decision highlights the nuances surrounding unpublished opinions and their potential impact on legal authority. While they do not constitute controlling law, they can still influence judicial decisions when properly cited.

Unpublished opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals are often overlooked in favor of published precedents. However, these decisions remain an essential part of the court's record and can provide valuable insights into the application of state laws. Rule 30(e)(3) permits citation of unpublished opinions under specific conditions, which may include cases where the opinion is relevant to a particular issue or where the parties involved have consented to its use.

The distinction between published and unpublished opinions is crucial in North Carolina's appellate court system. Published decisions are binding on lower courts and establish controlling precedent, whereas unpublished opinions remain advisory only. This dichotomy underscores the importance of carefully evaluating the relevance and authority of each opinion when citing them in legal arguments.

The implications of In re: I.W.M.-B. extend beyond the specific case itself, serving as a reminder to lawyers about the limitations and potential consequences of citing unpublished opinions. The court's decision underscores the need for caution when referencing these decisions in legal arguments, lest they be disfavored by courts.

In practice, this means that lawyers must carefully consider the relevance and authority of each opinion before citing it. While unpublished opinions can provide valuable insights into the application of state laws, their use should be judicious and guided by a clear understanding of the court's rules and precedents.

Lawyers should be cautious when citing unpublished opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, as they may not constitute controlling legal authority and could potentially lead to citation disfavored by courts.

Source: Original reporting via In re: I.W.M.-B. unpublished North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion