green
Positive treatment
2.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re H.L.A.D.
"While there is no requirement that the factual allegations be exhaustive or extensive, they must put a party on notice as to what acts, omissions or conditions are at issue." In re Hardesty, 150 N.C.App. 380 , 384, 563 S.E.2d 79 , 82 (2002); see also In re A.D.L., 169 N.C.App. 701 , 709, 612 S.E.2d 639 , 644, disc. rev. denied by 359 N.C. 852 , 619 S.E.2d 402 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re HLAD
"While there is no requirement that the factual allegations be exhaustive or extensive, they must put a party on notice as to what acts, omissions or conditions are at issue." In re Hardesty, 150 N.C.App. 380, 384 , 563 S.E.2d 79, 82 (2002); see also In re A.D.L., 169 N.C.App. 701, 709 , 612 S.E.2d 639, 644 , disc. rev. denied by 359 N.C. 852 , 619 S.E.2d 402 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re T.S., III
(2×)
Compare L.E.B., 169 N.C.App. at 379 , 610 S.E.2d at 426 (holding six month delay was "highly prejudicial"), and In re T.L.T., 170 N.C.App. 430, 432 , 612 S.E.2d 436, 438 (2005) (holding respondent prejudiced by a seven month delay), with J.L.K., 165 N.C.App. at 315 , 598 S.E.2d at 390-91 (2004) (holding that absent a showing of prejudice, a delay of eighty-nine days alone was not reversible error), and In re A.D.L., 169 N.C.App. 701, 705-06 , 612 S.E.2d 639, 642 (finding no prejudice where order was entered forty-five days after hearing), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 852 , 619 S.E.2d 402 (200…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re S.N.H.
Compare L.E.B., 169 N.C.App. at 379 , 610 S.E.2d at 426 (holding six month delay was "highly prejudicial"), and In re T.L.T., 170 N.C.App. 430 , 432, 612 S.E.2d 436 , 438 (2005) (holding respondent prejudiced by a seven month delay), with J.L.K., 165 N.C.App. at 315 , 598 S.E.2d at 390-91 (2004) (holding that absent a showing of prejudice, a delay of eighty-nine days alone was not reversible error), and In re A.D.L., 169 N.C.App. 701 , 705-06, 612 S.E.2d 639 , 642 (finding no prejudice where order was entered forty-five days after hearing), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 852 , 619 S.E.2d 402 (2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re SNH
Compare L.E.B., 169 N.C.App. at 379 , 610 S.E.2d at 426 (holding six month delay was "highly prejudicial"), and In re T.L.T., 170 N.C.App. 430, 432 , 612 S.E.2d 436, 438 (2005) (holding respondent prejudiced by a seven month delay), with J.L.K., 165 N.C.App. at 315 , 598 S.E.2d at 390-91 (2004) (holding that absent a showing of prejudice, a delay of eighty-nine days alone was not reversible error), and In re A.D.L., 169 N.C.App. 701, 705-06 , 612 S.E.2d 639, 642 (finding no prejudice where order was entered forty-five days after hearing), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 852 , 619 S.E.2d 402 (200…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re B.D.
No. 317P05.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Jul 1, 2005.
359 N.C. 852
Published
1. Petitioner’s (Buncombe County DSS) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA03-1599)
2. Respondents’ (Parents) Motion to Dismiss PDR
1. Allowed for purpose of remanding to COA for reconsideration in light of In re R.T.W., 359 N.C. 539, 614 S.E.2d 489 (2005). 08/18/05
2. Dismissed as moot 08/18/05