Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina
Matter of Huff
353 N.C. 374
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of North Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- North Carolina
- Date
- 2001-02-01
- Topic
- general
holding that, "even assuming arguendo that the trial court erred in allowing any religious inquiry, such error was not prejudicial because there is no indication that the testimony impacted the trial court's decision" | holding that, “even assuming arguendo that the trial court erred in allowing any religious inquiry, such error was not prejudicial because there is no indication that the testimony impacted the trial court’s decision”
Citator
- Cited by
- 80 opinions
In the Matter of X. HUFF.
No. 532P00.Supreme Court of North Carolina.
February 1, 2001.Alton D. Bain, Lillington, for Tampatha Huff.
Richard E. Jester, Angier, for James J. Huff.
E. Marshall Woodall, Lillington, for Harnett County DSS.
Prior report: 140 N.C.App. 288, 536 S.E.2d 838.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Respondent (James J. Huff) in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is
*10 "Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of February 2001."
Upon consideration of the petition filed by Respondent (James J. Huff) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:
"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of February 2001."
Justice EDMUNDS recused.