green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 ·
…time limitations in the juvenile code are not jurisdictional
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In re A.T.
time limitations in the juvenile code are not jurisdictional
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re At
time limitations in the juvenile code are not jurisdictional
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Ard
See In re C.L.C., K.T.R, A.M.R. & E.A.R., 171 N.C.App. 438, 443 , 615 S.E.2d 704, 707 (2005), aff'd per curiam, disc. review improvidently allowed, 360 N.C. 475 , 628 S.E.2d 760 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re THT
See In re As.L.G. & Au.R.G., 173 N.C.App. 551 , 619 S.E.2d 561 (2005), disc. review improvidently allowed, 360 N.C. 476 , 628 S.E.2d 760 (2006) (discussing numerous cases from our Court applying the prejudice requirement in juvenile cases where statutory deadlines were not followed).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re T.H.T.
See In re As.L.G. & Au.R.G., 173 N.C.App. 551 , 619 S.E.2d 561 (2005), disc. review improvidently allowed, 360 N.C. 476 , 628 S.E.2d 760 (2006) (discussing numerous cases from our Court applying the prejudice requirement in juvenile cases where statutory deadlines were not followed).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re CLK
See In re As.L.G., 173 N.C.App. 551, 555 , 619 S.E.2d 561, 564 (2005) ("Even if prejudice is apparent without argument, "[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts . . . to create an appeal for an appellant.'" (quoting Viar, 359 N.C. at 402 , 610 S.E.2d at 361 )), disc. review improvidently allowed, 360 N.C. 476 , 628 S.E.2d 760 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re C.L.K.
See In re As.L.G., 173 N.C.App. 551 , 555, 619 S.E.2d 561 , 564 (2005) ("Even if prejudice is apparent without argument, "[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts . . . to create an appeal for an appellant.'" (quoting Viar, 359 N.C. at 402 , 610 S.E.2d at 361 )), disc. review improvidently allowed, 360 N.C. 476 , 628 S.E.2d 760 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re H.T.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See In re As.L.G. and Au.R.G., 173 N.C.App. 551 , 557, 619 S.E.2d 561 , 565 (2005), disc. review improvidently allowed, 360 N.C. 476 , 628 S.E.2d 760 (2006) (declining to vacate a termination order despite a seven-month delay in filing the petition because "it is apparent that prejudice can manifest itself in many forms and can equally befall parties other than the respondent, but it must nonetheless be appropriately articulated."); In re D.J.D., 171 N.C.App. 230 , 242, 615 S.E.2d 26 , 34 (2005) (requiring a showing of prejudice in order for the technical error of a delay in holding the termin…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re HT
See In re As.L.G. and Au.R.G., 173 N.C.App. 551, 557 , 619 S.E.2d 561, 565 (2005), disc. review improvidently allowed, 360 N.C. 476 , 628 S.E.2d 760 (2006) (declining to vacate a termination order despite a seven-month delay in filing the petition because "it is apparent that prejudice can manifest itself in many forms and can equally befall parties other than the respondent, but it must nonetheless be appropriately articulated."); In re D.J.D., 171 N.C.App. 230, 242 , 615 S.E.2d 26, 34 (2005) (requiring a showing of prejudice in order for the technical error of a delay in holding the terminat…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Ds
See, e.g., In re C.L.C., 171 N.C.App. 438, 443-445 , 615 S.E.2d 704, 707-08 (2005) (holding that the statutory timelines governing the scheduling of the initial post-disposition custody review hearing under section 7B-906(a), the filing of permanency planning orders under section 7B-907(c), and the filing of a petition to terminate parental rights under section 7B-907(e) are "`directory, rather than mandatory and thus, not jurisdictional'" (quoting In re B.M., 168 N.C.App. 350, 354 , 607 S.E.2d 698, 701 (2005))), aff'd per curiam in part and disc. rev. improvidently allowed, 360 N.C. 475 , 628…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re WLM
We previously have held that "the time limitation specified in [section] 7B-907(e) is directory rather than mandatory and thus, not jurisdictional." In re B.M., M.M., An.M., Al.M., 168 N.C.App. 350, 354 , 607 S.E.2d 698, 701 (2005); see also In re C.L.C., K.T.R., A.M.R., E.A.R., 171 N.C.App. 438, 445 , 615 S.E.2d 704, 708 (2005), aff'd and disc. review improvidently allowed, 360 N.C. 475 , 628 S.E.2d 760 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re W.L.M.
We previously have held that "the time limitation specified in [section] 7B-907(e) is directory rather than mandatory and thus, not jurisdictional." In re B.M., M.M., An.M., Al.M., 168 N.C.App. 350 , 354, 607 S.E.2d 698 , 701 (2005); see also In re C.L.C., K.T.R., A.M.R., E.A.R., 171 N.C.App. 438 , 445, 615 S.E.2d 704 , 708 (2005), aff'd and disc. review improvidently allowed, 360 N.C. 475 , 628 S.E.2d 760 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jean Marie OSETEK
v.
Jason Lee JEREMIAH.
v.
Jason Lee JEREMIAH.
No. 687A05..
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 5, 2006.
628 S.E.2d 760
E. Gregory Stott, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant., Hall, Rodgers, Gaylord, Millikan & Croom, by Jonathan E. Hall and Kathleen M. Millikan, Cary, for defendant-appellee.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of North Caro… (2)
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.