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.
8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1940–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Montgomerygreen1 sentence2026A. Termination of Parental Rights “We review a trial court’s adjudication under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111 ‘to determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law.’ ” In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 392 (2019) (quoting In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 111 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
In re E.H.P.green1 sentence2026A. Termination of Parental Rights “We review a trial court’s adjudication under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111 ‘to determine whether the findings are supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and the findings support the conclusions of law.’ ” In re E.H.P., 372 N.C. 388, 392 (2019) (quoting In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 111 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
In re L.E.M.green2 sentences2025Mother’s counsel identified three potential issues in her no-merit brief: (1) “[t]he trial court erred in denying a continuance of the hearing to ensure . . . [M]other’s attendance”; (2) “[t]he trial court erred in finding that grounds existed to terminate . . . [M]other’s parental rights”; and (3) “[t]he trial court abused its discretion in finding that it was the best interests of [Kenzie] to terminate . . . -5- [M]other’s parental rights.” When a no-merit brief is filed under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court must “conduct an independent review of th 2025Mother’s counsel identified three potential issues in her no-merit brief: (1) “[t]he trial court erred in denying a continuance of the hearing to ensure . . . [M]other’s attendance”; (2) “[t]he trial court erred in finding that grounds existed to terminate . . . [M]other’s parental rights”; and (3) “[t]he trial court abused its discretion in finding that it was the best interests of [Kenzie] to terminate . . . -5- [M]other’s parental rights.” When a no-merit brief is filed under Rule 3.1(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court must “conduct an independent review of th | 1 | 1 |
Qurneh v. Coliegreen2 sentences2024Stat. § 7B-803 (2013))); see also In re Pittman, 149 N.C. App. 756, 761 , 561 S.E.2d 560, 564 (2002) (“Here, the child’s interest in being protected from abuse and neglect is paramount.”); Qurneh v. Colie, 122 N.C. App. 553, 558-59 , 471 S.E.2d 433, 436 (1996) (“The privilege against self-incrimination is intended to be a shield and not a sword. 2024Stat. § 7B-803 (2013))); see also In re Pittman, 149 N.C. App. 756, 761 , 561 S.E.2d 560, 564 (2002) (“Here, the child’s interest in being protected from abuse and neglect is paramount.”); Qurneh v. Colie, 122 N.C. App. 553, 558-59 , 471 S.E.2d 433, 436 (1996) (“The privilege against self-incrimination is intended to be a shield and not a sword. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Pittmangreen2 sentences2024Stat. § 7B-803 (2013))); see also In re Pittman, 149 N.C. App. 756, 761 , 561 S.E.2d 560, 564 (2002) (“Here, the child’s interest in being protected from abuse and neglect is paramount.”); Qurneh v. Colie, 122 N.C. App. 553, 558-59 , 471 S.E.2d 433, 436 (1996) (“The privilege against self-incrimination is intended to be a shield and not a sword. 2024Stat. § 7B-803 (2013))); see also In re Pittman, 149 N.C. App. 756, 761 , 561 S.E.2d 560, 564 (2002) (“Here, the child’s interest in being protected from abuse and neglect is paramount.”); Qurneh v. Colie, 122 N.C. App. 553, 558-59 , 471 S.E.2d 433, 436 (1996) (“The privilege against self-incrimination is intended to be a shield and not a sword. | 1 | 1 |
Belcher v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2009Cf. Belcher v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 162 N.C. App. 80, 84 , 590 S.E.2d 15, 18 (2004) (holding that plaintiffs could not complain that they had insufficient time to produce evidence where the trial court transformed defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs “fully participated in the hearing” and did not request a continuance at the hearing). 2009Cf. Belcher v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 162 N.C. App. 80, 84 , 590 S.E.2d 15, 18 (2004) (holding that plaintiffs could not complain that they had insufficient time to produce evidence where the trial court transformed defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs “fully participated in the hearing” and did not request a continuance at the hearing). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trustees of Catawba College v. Fetzer
neutral
2 sentences1940A similar rule applies where defendant has requested and the court has given time to file answer; Garrett v. Bear , 144 N.C. 23 , 56 S.E. 479 ; Oettinger v. Livestock Co. , 170 N.C. 152 , 86 S.E. 957 ; Trustees v. Fetzer , 162 N.C. 245 , 78 S.E. 152 ; and there is no reason why it should not apply in the present similar situation, which involves considerations of less importance. 1940A similar rule applies where defendant has requested and the court has given time to file answer; Garrett v. Bear, 144 N. C., 23 , 56 S. E., 479 ; Oettinger v. Livestock Co., 170 N. C., 152 , 86 S. E., 957 ; Trustees v. Fetzer, 162 N. C., 245 , 78 S. E., 152 ; and there is no reason why it should not apply in the present similar situation, which involves considerations of less importance. | 2 | 1940–1940 |
Oettinger v. Hill Live Stock Co.
green
2 sentences1940A similar rule applies where defendant has requested and the court has given time to file answer; Garrett v. Bear, 144 N. C., 23 , 56 S. E., 479 ; Oettinger v. Livestock Co., 170 N. C., 152 , 86 S. E., 957 ; Trustees v. Fetzer, 162 N. C., 245 , 78 S. E., 152 ; and there is no reason why it should not apply in the present similar situation, which involves considerations of less importance. 1940A similar rule applies where defendant has requested and the court has given time to file answer; Garrett v. Bear, 144 N. C., 23 , 56 S. E., 479 ; Oettinger v. Livestock Co., 170 N. C., 152 , 86 S. E., 957 ; Trustees v. Fetzer, 162 N. C., 245 , 78 S. E., 152 ; and there is no reason why it should not apply in the present similar situation, which involves considerations of less importance. | 2 | 1940–1940 |
Garrett & Co. v. Bear
green
2 sentences1940A similar rule applies where defendant has requested and the court has given time to file answer; Garrett v. Bear, 144 N. C., 23 , 56 S. E., 479 ; Oettinger v. Livestock Co., 170 N. C., 152 , 86 S. E., 957 ; Trustees v. Fetzer, 162 N. C., 245 , 78 S. E., 152 ; and there is no reason why it should not apply in the present similar situation, which involves considerations of less importance. 1940A similar rule applies where defendant has requested and the court has given time to file answer; Garrett v. Bear, 144 N. C., 23 , 56 S. E., 479 ; Oettinger v. Livestock Co., 170 N. C., 152 , 86 S. E., 957 ; Trustees v. Fetzer, 162 N. C., 245 , 78 S. E., 152 ; and there is no reason why it should not apply in the present similar situation, which involves considerations of less importance. | 2 | 1940–1940 |
Diaz v. Division of Social Services
green
1 sentence2007Indeed, ex parte proceedings are specifically defined as those "[d]one or made at the instance and for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or argument by, any person adversely interested; of or relating to court action taken by one party without notice to the other, usu[ally] for temporary or emergency relief. " Id. at 616, 628 S.E.2d 1 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Department of Transportation v. Bollinger
green
2 sentences2002Defendants have failed to show how they have been prejudiced by the trial court’s” treating evidence “as an amendment to the pleadings.” Id. 2002Defendants have failed to show how they have been prejudiced by the trial court's" treating evidence "as an amendment to the pleadings." Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
American Trust Co. v. Nicholson
neutral
1 sentence1940A similar rule applies where defendant has requested and the court has given time to file answer; Garrett v. Bear, 144 N. C., 23 , 56 S. E., 479 ; Oettinger v. Livestock Co., 170 N. C., 152 , 86 S. E., 957 ; Trustees v. Fetzer, 162 N. C., 245 , 78 S. E., 152 ; and there is no reason why it should not apply in the present similar situation, which involves considerations of less importance. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.