Johnson v. Johnson
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
GRAHAM, Judge.
The parties stipulated that the children now reside with defendant in South Carolina and that they were not present in this State when the motion was filed or at the time it was heard.
It was often stated, in custody cases decided before 1 October 1967, that the child should be before the court before an order could be entered “affecting the person of the infant.” Romano v. Romano, 266 N.C. 551, 146 S.E. 2d 821. The theory was that custody proceedings were in rem proceedings. Cushing v. Cushing, 263 N.C. 181, 139 S.E. 2d 217. However, it was also recognized that if both parties…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In Re the Custody of SaulsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Blankenship v. BlankenshipSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Weddington v. WeddingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- In Re HoltCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
- Cushing v. CushingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Latham v. LathamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- In Re GreerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
- Morris v. MorrisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- Powers v. ParisherCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Thompson v. Santiago, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County2001
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.