{
  "id": 138341,
  "name": "IN RE THE ESTATE OF CANDICE LEIGH LUNSFORD, Deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Estate of Lunsford",
  "decision_date": "2001-12-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 362A01",
  "first_page": "571",
  "last_page": "571",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "354 N.C. 571"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "547 S.E.2d 483",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N.C. App. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11436709
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/143/0646-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 134,
    "char_count": 1413,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.145284879389571e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42844466994021657
    },
    "sha256": "7bce6ed604a6c50b619f555faed36f728d03ba94bcbdb02fb678a7ddde8adb16",
    "simhash": "1:284b78f774a16eb8",
    "word_count": 233
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:42.215284+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "s/Butterfield, J.",
      "For The Court"
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN RE THE ESTATE OF CANDICE LEIGH LUNSFORD, Deceased"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER.\nThe opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court for additional findings of fact as to (1) whether respondent Randy Lunsford abandoned Candice Leigh Lunsford; (2) if so, whether respondent Randy Lunsford resumed care and maintenance of Candice Leigh Lunsford at least one year prior to her death and continued the same until her death; and (3) whether respondent Randy Lunsford \u201csubstantially complied\u201d with all orders of the trial court requiring contribution to the support of the child.\nSo ordered by the Court in Conference, this the 18th day of December, 2001.\ns/Butterfield, J.\nFor The Court",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Royster and Royster, by Stephen G. Royster and Michael D. Beal, for petitioner-appellee Dawn Collins Bean.",
      "Law Offices of Jonathan S. Dills, RA., by Jonathan S. Dills and Daniel B. Anthony, for respondent-appellant Randy Keith Lunsford."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN RE THE ESTATE OF CANDICE LEIGH LUNSFORD, Deceased\nNo. 362A01\n(Filed 18 December 2001)\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 143 N.C. App. 646, 547 S.E.2d 483 (2001), affirming an order entered 3 March 2000 by Burke, J., in Superior Court, Surry County. On 19 July 2001, the Supreme Court allowed respondent Lunsford\u2019s petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 November 2001.\nRoyster and Royster, by Stephen G. Royster and Michael D. Beal, for petitioner-appellee Dawn Collins Bean.\nLaw Offices of Jonathan S. Dills, RA., by Jonathan S. Dills and Daniel B. Anthony, for respondent-appellant Randy Keith Lunsford."
  },
  "file_name": "0571-01",
  "first_page_order": 605,
  "last_page_order": 605
}