In re Crouse
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WEBB, Judge.
In his first assignment of error the respondent contends that the commitment order is void on its face because the court did not record facts to support the order as required by G.S. 122-58.7. He says this is so because the court recorded the facts by placing the letter “x” in the boxes on the commitment order form beside *698the facts and other findings it made. He says this violates the rule of In re Jacobs, 38 N.C. App. 573, 248 S.E. 2d 448 (1978). It is true that case states that “Merely placing an ‘X’ in the boxes on the commitment order form does not comply with the statute.” We…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In Matter of KoyiCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
- Matter of JacobsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- Matter of CrainshawCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re R.R.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018