With Christmas less than 200 days away, it’s a good time for the holiday spirit.

At least that’s what you might think after reading one of the opinions handed down today from the N.C. Supreme Court.

It’s the most active day for state high court opinions since the November 2016 election that flipped the officially nonpartisan court’s makeup from a 4-3 Republican majority to the current 4-3 Democratic lineup.

After issuing just 10 prior opinions in 2017, Supreme Court justices released another 16 opinions this morning. Those rulings present an interesting picture.

First, though much has been made about potential partisan splits on the newly constituted court, only one case led to a 4-3 split ruling. Another case split, 5-2, and justices reached unanimous decisions in the other 14 cases.

Justice Paul Newby issued opinions in four cases: twice writing for the majority, once in dissent, and once in a concurrence with a holiday flair. Justices Cheri Beasley and Sam Ervin IV each wrote three majority opinions. Chief Justice Mark Martin wrote two majority opinions and one dissent. Justice Robin Hudson wrote two majority opinions. The court’s newest member, Justice Michael Morgan, wrote one majority opinion and one dissent. Justice Barbara Jackson wrote one majority opinion.

The one case with a 4-3 split did break down along party lines. In State v. Romano, the Democratic justices modified but otherwise affirmed a ruling from the N.C. Court of Appeals. That court had upheld a trial court’s order blocking prosecutors from using blood test results in a 2014 Buncombe County drunk driving case.

The dispute involved a state law that has permitted law enforcement officers to take blood samples from unconscious defendants charged with impaired driving. The trial judge had ruled, and the Supreme Court majority agreed, that the case violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling challenges the constitutionality of the state law, but the three Republican state justices joined a Romano dissent written by Martin. At the time of the 2014 incident that led to criminal charges in the case, “the [state] provision had never been held unconstitutional,” Martin wrote. “It may now be unconstitutional, at least as applied to defendant, but only because of a decision that the Supreme Court of the United States issued after the State had filed a petition for review of this case in this Court.”

“The search that was conducted in this case therefore falls into the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule under federal law,” Martin continued. Newby, who joined Martin’s dissent, chimed in with a dissent of his own. He focused on the fact that medical personnel who collected the disputed blood sample were not “state actors.”

“Because the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply only to actions by governmental officials and their agents, and defendant failed to establish that the medical personnel were such agents, the blood draw at issue was not a search contemplated by the Fourth Amendment,” Newby wrote.

Newby also crafted the most amusing opinion handed down today. In the unanimous decision of State v. Jones, Newby offered a concurring opinion relying on the longstanding judicial principles of … “It’s A Wonderful Life.”

In Jones the high court reversed the N.C. Court of Appeals in a Wayne County case. Justices ruled that a contract truck driver could be convicted of larceny for trying in 2012 to use nearly $120,000 deposited into his bank account because of a clerical error.

Newby’s five-page concurrence used Jones to revisit “the timeworn question” arising from Frank Capra’s classic 1946 holiday movie: “Was Old Man Potter simply morally corrupt, or was he also guilty of a crime?”

The opinion recounts one of the movie’s critical scenes, when “Uncle Billy” Bailey mistakenly hands over $8,000 to Potter while needling the crabby banker and longtime nemesis of the Bailey family’s building and loan company. Potter later realizes Billy’s mistake but makes no effort to return the money.

“Armed with the knowledge that the money belongs to the Building & Loan Company, Potter exercises dominion and control by keeping the funds, and has thus committed larceny,” Newby writes.

Potter’s deception paves the way toward George Bailey’s crisis of faith, attempted suicide, and encounter with the wingless angel Clarence. The story culminates with the Bedford Falls community’s rally to save George’s business just as Christmas arrives.

“So the story ends,” Newby reminds us. “George has a wonderful life. Clarence gets his wings. Old Man Potter is a morally bankrupt individual, but an unindicted felon. And we continue our quest to apply ageless common law principles to our ever-changing modern world.”

Cue the credits.

Mitch Kokai is senior political analyst for the John Locke Foundation.