green
Positive treatment
5.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In re: J.S.C.
(2×)
See In re E.N.S. , 164 N.C.App. 146 , 152, 595 S.E.2d 167 , 171 (noting "there is clear case law that holds the order of the trial court must affirmatively state the standard of proof utilized"), disc. review denied , 359 N.C. 189 , 606 S.E.2d 903 -04 (2004) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re PM
(2×)
See In re E.N.S., 164 N.C.App. 146, 150 , 595 S.E.2d 167, 170 (affirming conclusion of neglect "based primarily on events that took place before [the child's] birth, in particular, the circumstances regarding respondent's oldest child being adjudicated neglected and dependent" and a subsequent failure to demonstrate stability), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 189 , 606 S.E.2d 903 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re LEB
(2×)
See In re E.N.S., 164 N.C.App. 146, 153 , 595 S.E.2d 167, 172 (2004) (no prejudice shown on adjudication and disposition orders entered over forty days after the hearing), disc. rev. denied, 359 N.C. 189 , 606 S.E.2d 903 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Webber
This Court recently reaffirmed the principle that "without proper notice of appeal, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction and neither the court nor the parties may waive the jurisdictional requirements even for good cause shown under Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure." In re Me.B., M.J., Mo.B., 181 N.C.App. 597, 600 , 640 S.E.2d 407, 409 (2007) (citations, alterations, and quotation marks omitted); see also In re Hudson, 165 N.C.App. 894, 898 , 600 S.E.2d 25, 28 (noting that "[w]hen the record does not include a notice of appeal, the appellate courts are without jurisdiction." …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re CLK
(2×)
Gen.Stat. § 7B-1109(e) and § 7B-1110(a), and the delay prejudiced all parties.); In re O.S.W., 175 N.C.App. 414 , 623 S.E.2d 349 (2006) (The trial court's order was vacated because it failed to enter its order for six months and the father was prejudiced because he was unable to file an appeal.); In re T.W., L.W., E.H., 173 N.C.App. 153 , 617 S.E.2d 702 (2005) (The trial court entered its order just short of one year from the date of the hearing and this Court reversed the trial court's order.); In re L.L., 172 N.C.App. 689 , 616 S.E.2d 392 (2005) (A nine month delay prejudiced the parents.)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re C.L.K.
(2×)
Gen.Stat. § 7B-1109(e) and § 7B-1110(a), and the delay prejudiced all parties.); In re O.S.W., 175 N.C.App. 414 , 623 S.E.2d 349 (2006) (The trial court's order was vacated because it failed to enter its order for six months and the father was prejudiced because he was unable to file an appeal.); In re T.W., L.W., E.H., 173 N.C.App. 153 , 617 S.E.2d 702 (2005) (The trial court entered its order just short of one year from the date of the hearing and this Court reversed the trial court's order.); In re L.L., 172 N.C.App. 689 , 616 S.E.2d 392 (2005) (A nine month delay prejudiced the parents.)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re D.J.D.
(2×)
This Court has previously held that despite an eighty-nine day delay in reducing the order to writing, "vacating the TPR order" was "not an appropriate remedy for the trial court's failure to enter the order within 30 days of the hearing" where "neglect and abandonment had been proven by clear, cogent and convincing evidence as the grounds upon which respondent's parental rights were being terminated." J.L.K., 165 N.C.App. at 316 , 598 S.E.2d at 391 ; see also In re E.N.S., 164 N.C.App. 146 , 153, 595 S.E.2d 167 , 172, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 189 , 606 S.E.2d 903 -04 (2004) (holding reve…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re DJD
(2×)
This Court has previously held that despite an eighty-nine day delay in reducing the order to writing, "vacating the TPR order" was "not an appropriate remedy for the trial court's failure to enter the order within 30 days of the hearing" where "neglect and abandonment had been proven by clear, cogent and convincing evidence as the grounds upon which respondent's parental rights were being terminated." J.L.K., 165 N.C.App. at 316 , 598 S.E.2d at 391 ; see also In re E.N.S., 164 N.C.App. 146, 153 , 595 S.E.2d 167, 172 , disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 189 , 606 S.E.2d 903 -04 (2004) (holding reve…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of E.N.S., Dob: 2/25/02. Appellant: Respondent-Mother, Crystal S.
277P04.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Dec 2, 2004.
Published
Katharine Chester, for Crystal S.
Jennifer O'Connor, Raleigh, W.A. Holland, Smithfield, for Johnston Co. DSS.
James D. Johnson, Jr., for Guardian ad Litem.
[*904] ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of June 2004 by Respondent (Mother) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:
"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of December 2004."