Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Boseman v. Jarrellgreen2 sentences2026While “there is no bright line beyond which a parent’s conduct meets this standard[,]” Boseman v. Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 549 (2010), “the [parent’s] acts are not required to be ‘bad acts’ that would endanger the children[,]” Heatzig v. MacLean, 191 N.C. App. 451, 455 (2008) (emphasis omitted). 2024And because “there is no bright line beyond which a parent’s conduct meets this standard,” Boseman, 364 N.C. at 549 , all allegedly inconsistent conduct “must be viewed on a case-by-case basis.” Owenby, 357 N.C. at 147 (quoting Price, 346 N.C. at 79 ). | 3 | 8 |
Price v. Howardgreen2 sentences2024And because “there is no bright line beyond which a parent’s conduct meets this standard,” Boseman, 364 N.C. at 549 , all allegedly inconsistent conduct “must be viewed on a case-by-case basis.” Owenby, 357 N.C. at 147 (quoting Price, 346 N.C. at 79 ). 2018As we explained in Price [ v. Howard , 346 N.C. 68 , 79, 484 S.E.2d 528 , 534 (1997) ], conduct rising to the 'statutory level warranting termination of parental rights' is unnecessary. | 2 | 4 |
Heatzig v. MacLeangreen1 sentence2026While “there is no bright line beyond which a parent’s conduct meets this standard[,]” Boseman v. Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 549 (2010), “the [parent’s] acts are not required to be ‘bad acts’ that would endanger the children[,]” Heatzig v. MacLean, 191 N.C. App. 451, 455 (2008) (emphasis omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In re: D.A.green2 sentences2024In re D.A., 258 N.C. App. 247, 250 , 811 S.E.2d 729, 732 (2018). “[T]here is no bright line rule beyond which a parent’s conduct meets this standard; instead, we examine each case individually in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances and the applicable legal precedent.” In re B.R.W., 381 N.C. at 82, 871 S.E.2d at 779. 2024In re D.A., 258 N.C. App. 247, 250 , 811 S.E.2d 729, 732 (2018). “[T]here is no bright line rule beyond which a parent’s conduct meets this standard; instead, we examine each case individually in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances and the applicable legal precedent.” In re B.R.W., 381 N.C. at 82, 871 S.E.2d at 779. | 1 | 1 |
Owenby v. Younggreen2 sentences2024Indeed, we must “examine each case individually in light of all of the relevant facts and circumstances and the applicable legal precedent.” In re B.R.W., 381 N.C. 61 , 82 (2022); see also id. at 83 (“In conducting the required analysis, ‘evidence of a parent’s conduct should be viewed cumulatively.’ ” (quoting Owenby, 357 N.C. at 147 )). 2024And because “there is no bright line beyond which a parent’s conduct meets this standard,” Boseman, 364 N.C. at 549 , all allegedly inconsistent conduct “must be viewed on a case-by-case basis.” Owenby, 357 N.C. at 147 (quoting Price, 346 N.C. at 79 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.