In re the Custody of Gupton
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Jones (N.C. Ct. App. 1992)
- Houston v. Town of Chapel Hill (N.C. Ct. App. 2006)
- In re: C.D.G. (N.C. Ct. App. 2021)
- Hummel v. University of North Carolina (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)
- Frizzelle v. Harnett County (N.C. Ct. App. 1992)
- In re Wilson (N.C. 1962)
- In re R.S.H. (N.C. 2022)
- In re R.S.H. (N.C. 2022)
- Smitheman Ex Rel. Godwin v. National Presto Industries, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 1993)
- Matter of Alamance County Ct. Facilities (N.C. 1991)
- In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 121 Greene (N.C. 1991)
- Lowder v. All Star Mills, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 1983)
- People v. Handcock (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California 1983)
- In re: Joseph Lee Moore (N.C. 1976)
- Horton v. Horton (N.C. Ct. App. 1971)
- In re the Custody of Griffin (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)
- Shepherd v. Shepherd (N.C. 1968)
- Mazur v. Lazarus (D.C. 1964)
- McGuire v. McGuire (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)
- In re Gibbons (N.C. 1956)
- Kesseler v. Kesseler (N.Y. 1962)
- State v. Crocker (N.C. 1954)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The law of the land clause embodied in Article I, Section 17, of the North Carolina Constitution guarantees to the litigant in every kind of judicial proceeding the right to an adequate and fair hearing before he can be deprived of his claim or defense by judicial decree. Eason v. Spence, 232 N.C. 579, 61 S.E. 2d 717; Surety Corp. v. Sharpe, 232 N.C. 98, 59 S.E. 2d 593.
Where the claim or defense turns upon a factual adjudication, the constitutional right of the litigant to an adequate and fair hearing requires that he be apprised of all the evidence received by the court and given an opportunity to test, explain, or rebut it. In re Edwards’ Estate, 234 *305 N.C. 202, 66 S.E. 2d 675; S. v. Gordon, 225 N.C. 241, 34 S.E. 2d 414; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 33 S. Ct. 185, 57 L. Ed. 431.
Tbe judgment sets at naught the petitioner’s constitutional right to an adequate and fair hearing. It deprives him of his claim to the custody of his daughter upon a factual adjudication based in substantial part upon evidence of an unrevealed nature gathered by the presiding judge in secret from undisclosed sources without his knowledge or that of his counsel.
The judgment is set aside and the proceeding is remanded to the Superior Court of Nash County to the end that it may be heard anew agreeably to the law of the land.
Error and remanded.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.