The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an interesting bad facts caveat opinion in In re West (COA 25-409), published on April 15, 2026. On the merits, the case is mostly standard Andrews factors undue influence analysis and standard duress analysis, but the factual scenario is worth a read: a late stage hospital execution, heavy medication, alleged spousal pressure, and a changed contingent disposition. The dissent makes good points on the merits. The rest of the opinion is a procedural dispute over the directed verdict standard.

In McNutt v. U.S. Department of Justice, filed on April 10, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down an 1868 federal law banning home alcohol distilleries. As noted in the Volokh Conspiracy blog, it is interesting that the Court relied on the taxing power and not the commerce clause. Further commentary from the Washington Post here.

In an unpublished decision filed April 1, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the propounder in a will caveat alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The propounder supported summary judgment with affidavits and contemporaneous medical records. The caveators, however, relied primarily on a verified caveat alleging, “upon information and belief,” that the decedent suffered from dementia, lacked testamentary capacity, and was unduly influenced. The Court held those assertions were conclusory and insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. A useful reminder that suspicion is not evidence.