In re Walker
North Carolina Supreme Court
191 S.E.2d 702 (1972)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Fourteen-year-old Valerie Walker (defendant) habitually disobeyed her parents, neglected her chores, partied away the night at places of ill repute, and acted up in school. Valerie’s mother, Katherine Walker (plaintiff), petitioned the juvenile court for a declaration that Valerie was an undisciplined child in need of the court’s supervision and control. Disciplinary action could not result in Valerie’s institutionalization, and therefore, the court did not appoint a lawyer to represent Valerie. At the ensuing hearing, the court granted Katherine’s petition and put Valerie on probation. Seeing that Valerie persisted in her wild ways, Valerie’s probation officer moved to have Valerie declared a delinquent child. A declaration of delinquency could result in Valerie’s being committed to an institution that would curtail her freedom. Accordingly, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), the juvenile court appointed a lawyer to represent Valerie at the delinquency hearing. Nevertheless, the court found Valerie to be a delinquent child and sent her to reform school. Valerie appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, where she argued that the juvenile court erred in not appointing a lawyer to represent Valerie at the initial disciplinary hearing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Huskins, J.)
Dissent (Bobbitt, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.