In re Hamilton
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
*58 Stacy, J.
This case was before us at the last term, and we are now asked by petitioner to reconsider our original decision, upon the ground that in Atkinson v. Downing, 115 N. C., 244 , and In re Fain, 172 N. C., 791 , it was suggested by obiter dicta that the ruling in Stokes v. Cogdell, 153 N. C., 181 , might not be held as a controlling authority in future cases of this kind. But on mature reflection, and especially in view of the recent legislative policy as declared in the act creating the juvenile courts (C. S., 5039 et seq.), we are of opinion that the position originally announced in this case and as formerly declared in Stokes v. Gogdell, supra, must be reaffirmed and followed. There is nothing in the case of In re Warren, 178 N. C., 43 , or in the case of In re Means, 176 N. C., 307 , which militates against this position.
Petition dismissed.
WalKBR, J., dissents.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.