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.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re AKgreen2 sentences2020Id. at 455 , 628 S.E.2d at 757 (internal citations omitted). 2020Id. at 455 , 628 S.E.2d at 757 (internal citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Murphygreen2 sentences2006See In re Murphy, 105 N.C.App. at 655 , 414 S.E.2d at 399 ("Indeed, [counsel for the father] could point to no reason that the respondent should be transported to the hearing other than for respondent to contest his sexual assault convictions, an impermissible reason."); In re Wilkerson, 57 N.C.App. 63, 70 , 291 S.E.2d 182, 186 (1982) (holding that collateral estoppel properly applied to findings made in a custody review hearing and rendered those findings binding in a subsequent TPR hearing). 2006See In re Murphy, 105 N.C.App. at 655 , 414 S.E.2d at 399 ("Indeed, [counsel for the father] could point to no reason that the respondent should be transported to the hearing other than for respondent to contest his sexual assault convictions, an impermissible reason."); In re Wilkerson, 57 N.C.App. 63, 70 , 291 S.E.2d 182, 186 (1982) (holding that collateral estoppel properly applied to findings made in a custody review hearing and rendered those findings binding in a subsequent TPR hearing). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Wilkersongreen2 sentences2006See In re Murphy, 105 N.C.App. at 655 , 414 S.E.2d at 399 ("Indeed, [counsel for the father] could point to no reason that the respondent should be transported to the hearing other than for respondent to contest his sexual assault convictions, an impermissible reason."); In re Wilkerson, 57 N.C.App. 63, 70 , 291 S.E.2d 182, 186 (1982) (holding that collateral estoppel properly applied to findings made in a custody review hearing and rendered those findings binding in a subsequent TPR hearing). 2006See In re Murphy, 105 N.C.App. at 655 , 414 S.E.2d at 399 ("Indeed, [counsel for the father] could point to no reason that the respondent should be transported to the hearing other than for respondent to contest his sexual assault convictions, an impermissible reason."); In re Wilkerson, 57 N.C.App. 63, 70 , 291 S.E.2d 182, 186 (1982) (holding that collateral estoppel properly applied to findings made in a custody review hearing and rendered those findings binding in a subsequent TPR hearing). | 1 | 2 |
In Re TRPgreen2 sentences2010See In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 593 , 636 S.E.2d 787, 792 (2006) (determining that a court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a subsequent custody review hearing since the court's subject matter jurisdiction was not invoked at the outset of a juvenile case). 2010See In re T.R.P, 360 N.C. 588, 593 , 636 S.E.2d 787, 792 (2006) (determining that a court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a subsequent custody review hearing since the court’s subject matter jurisdiction was not invoked at the outset of a juvenile case). | 1 | 1 |
In re T.R.P.green2 sentences2010See In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 593 , 636 S.E.2d 787, 792 (2006) (determining that a court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a subsequent custody review hearing since the court's subject matter jurisdiction was not invoked at the outset of a juvenile case). 2010See In re T.R.P, 360 N.C. 588, 593 , 636 S.E.2d 787, 792 (2006) (determining that a court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a subsequent custody review hearing since the court’s subject matter jurisdiction was not invoked at the outset of a juvenile case). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Price v. Howard
green
2 sentences2005When, as here, the dispositional order removes custody from a parent, the court holds a custody review hearing within ninety days of the dispositional hearing and again within six months. [8] Id. § 7B-906(a). 2005When, as here, the dispositional order removes custody from a parent, the court holds a custody review hearing within ninety days of the dispositional hearing and again within six months. 8 Id. § 7B-906(a). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
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.