In Re HLAD’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2020
22 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738A
Relies on 127 N.C. App. 505 - Matter of Helms · Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc. · 140 N.C. App. 288 - In Re Huff · Matter of Huff · 84 N.C. App. 666 - Harris v. Pembaur
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver, and the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[s]ubject matter jurisdiction ... is conferred upon the courts by either the North Carolina Constitution or by statute.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine any petition or motion relating to termination of parental rights to any juvenile who resides in, is found in, or is in the legal or actual custody of a county department of social services or licensed child-placing agency in the district at the time of the filing of the petition or motion.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.