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 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…
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…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of A.D.L., J.S.L., C.L.L. appealed by Mother.
No. 330P05..
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Aug 18, 2005.
619 S.E.2d 402
Katharine Chester, for Jennifer L.-Mother., Michael K. Newby, High Point, for Guilford County DSS., Joyce Terres, Greensboro, for Guardian Ad Litem.
Published
Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of June 2005 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 18th day of August 2005."