Appeals Court also rules in dispute linked to infamous Duke lacrosse case

Misleading DNA analysis in the infamous 2006 “Duke lacrosse rape case” cost Brian Meehan his job with DNA Security. This morning, a unanimous three-judge panel of the N.C. Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court decision allowing Meehan’s job dismissal to stand. Appellate judges sent the case back to the trial court to resolve the issue of how much money Meehan’s former employer owes him.

In addition to this case and the opinion handed down in Sugar Creek Charter School Inc. v. State of N.C., et al., the N.C. Court of Appeals this morning:

• ruled unanimously against the Environmental Defense Fund and the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association in a dispute over whether Duke Energy can count wood chips burned along with coal in two power plants as renewable energy sources necessary to meet renewable energy mandates set out in Senate Bill 3.
• found no error in the case of Anthony McMillan, convicted of murder in a 2006 drug-related double homicide at a Cumberland County car wash.
• offered a mixed opinion to the N.C. Department of Transportation in a condemnation dispute involving an N.C. 87 Bypass project in Bladen County. A unanimous three-judge panel affirmed a trial court’s ruling against DOT’s motion to dismiss the case, but appellate judges want the trial court to reconsider whether an “inverse condemnation” has taken place in the dispute.
• split 2-1 in favor of sending back to trial court a dispute over a $14,000 bill assessed to a Carolinas Healthcare System patient for a three-day hospital stay and treatment in 2007.
• reversed in a unanimous opinion a trial court ruling in a dispute involving the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services and Medicaid long-term care benefits. The appellate opinion favors DHHS in the dispute.
• affirmed in a unanimous opinion the N.C. Property Tax Commission’s assessment of a $9.4 million value for two properties connected with the Blue Ridge Mall in Henderson County. Mall owners had pushed for a $7.7 million tax valuation, while the county argued for a valuation of $12 million.