Timp v. Dockham

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that appeal from a juvenile neglect adjudication was not moot as it could reasonably result in collateral legal consequences
• holding that adjudication of petitioners’ daughter as a neglected child was not moot even after full custody of the daughter was returned to the petitioners because of the collateral consequences the adjudication may have on the petitioners’ credibility
• stating that this Court will usually “decide a case only if the controversy which gave rise to the action continues at the time of appeal” (citing In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 148, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978)
• stating that this Court will usually “decide a case only if the controversy which gave rise to the action continues at the time of appeal” (citing In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 148, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978)
• acknowledging “continued justiciability of appeals -4- MCKENZIE V. MCKENZIE Opinion of the Court involving collateral legal consequences”
• allowing appeal from finding of child neglect, even though full custody later restored, because neglect finding “could have adverse consequences” in future custody proceedings and “may detrimentally impact societal and interpersonal relationships”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).