{
  "id": 3794743,
  "name": "IN THE MATTERS OF C.L.C., K.T.R., A.M.R., and E.A.R.",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re C.L.C.",
  "decision_date": "2006-05-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 467A05",
  "first_page": "475",
  "last_page": "475",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "360 N.C. 475"
    }
  ],
  "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": "615 S.E.2d 704",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633351
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/615/0704-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N.C. App. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8437736
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/171/0438-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 113,
    "char_count": 1121,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.741,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.946301159712385e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9348307565421767
    },
    "sha256": "d2f00dc7acd494f5d516b2e471e6136b165f4021ff5fa59796271c98329bb132",
    "simhash": "1:2c701cc27689e2dd",
    "word_count": 173
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:28:24.883894+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTERS OF C.L.C., K.T.R., A.M.R., and E.A.R."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nAs to the appeal of right based on the dissenting opinion, we affirm the majority decision of the Court of Appeals. We conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.\nAFFIRMED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.\nJustice TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charlotte W. Nallan and John Adams for petitioner-appellee Buncombe County Department of Social Services.",
      "Charlotte Gail Blake for respondent-appellant mother.",
      "Judy N. Rudolph for appellee Guardian ad Litem."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTERS OF C.L.C., K.T.R., A.M.R., and E.A.R.\nNo. 467A05\n(Filed 5 May 2006)\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 171 N.C. App. 438, 615 S.E.2d 704 (2005), affirming a judgment terminating respondent\u2019s parental rights signed on 15 October 2003 by Judge Marvin P. Pope in District Court, Buncombe County. On 26 January 2006, the Supreme Court allowed respondent\u2019s petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 19 April 2006.\nCharlotte W. Nallan and John Adams for petitioner-appellee Buncombe County Department of Social Services.\nCharlotte Gail Blake for respondent-appellant mother.\nJudy N. Rudolph for appellee Guardian ad Litem."
  },
  "file_name": "0475-01",
  "first_page_order": 547,
  "last_page_order": 547
}