Legal Opinion

Matter of Adoption of Spinks

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 2, 1977No. 7619SC728PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRITT, Judge.

Respondent contends first that petitioner’s motion was insufficient in that it failed to state the grounds upon which she sought to obtain the requested relief under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This contention is without merit.

Respondent argues that the motion was insufficient in that it fails to allege that the disclosure of the requested information would be in the best interest of herself or the public. We think the motion is sufficient to withstand this argument. Among other things the motion recites the applicable statute (G.S. 48-26) under which the grounds for…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Woodard v. MordecaiSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  2. Crosby v. CrosbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. In Re Housing Authority of City of Charlotte.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  4. Swicegood v. SwicegoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  5. Peoples v. PeoplesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. In Re Roger B.Illinois Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Sheppard v. SheppardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  3. In Re AssaloneSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1986
  4. Roger B. v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
  5. Rumley v. InmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API