In Re BLH’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 156 N.C. App. 533 - In Re Humphrey · 158 N.C. App. 441 - In Re McKinney · Mangum v. Surles · 53 N.C. App. 373 - Matter of Peirce · 150 N.C. App. 380 - In Re Hardesty
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Rules of Civil Procedure will, however, apply to fill procedural gaps where Chapter 7B requires, but does not identify, a specific procedure to be used in termination cases.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] petition for termination of parental rights must allege "[f]acts that are sufficient to warrant a determination that one or more of the grounds for terminating parental rights [listed in N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111] exist." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-1104(6) (2007). "While there is no requirement that the factual allegations [in a petition for termination of parental rights] be exhaustive or extensive, they must put a party on notice as to what acts, omissions, or conditions are at issue." In re Hardesty, 150 N.C.App. 380, 384 , 563 S.E.2d 79, 82 (2002). Where the factual allegations in a petition to terminate parental rights do not refer to a specific statutory ground for termination, the trial court may find any ground for termination under N.C.G.S. § 7B-1111 as long as the factual allegations in the petition give the respondent sufficient notice of the ground. In re A.H., 183 N.C.App. 609 , 644 S.E.2d 635 (2007); In re Humphrey, 156 N.C.App. 533 , 577 S.E.2d 421 (2003). However, where a respondent lacks notice of a possible ground for termination, it is error for the trial court to conclude such a ground exists. In re C.W. & J.W., 182 N.C.App. 214, 228-29 , 641 S.E.2d 725, 735 (2007); Hardesty, 150 N.C.App. at 384 , 563 S.E.2d at 82 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re G.B.R. · In re A.M.A.T.“This Court has held that the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure do `not provide parties in termination actions with procedural rights not explicitly granted by the juvenile code.'”
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.