11 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Boudreau v. Baughmangreen2 sentences2021See Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331, 333 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 852 (1988). 2021See Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 N.C. 331, 333 , 368 S.E.2d 849, 852 (1988). | 2 | 2 |
Nash County Department of Social Services Ex Rel. Child Support Enforcement Agency Ex Rel. Williams v. Beamongreen2 sentences2005Servs. v. Beamon, 126 N.C.App. 536, 538 , 485 S.E.2d 851, 852 (1997) (holding that testimony rebutted the presumption created by G.S. § 8-50.1(b1)(4), which creates a presumption of parenthood where the paternity test shows a probability of parentage 97% or greater that "may be rebutted only by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence"). 2005Servs. v. Beamon, 126 N.C.App. 536, 538 , 485 S.E.2d 851, 852 (1997) (holding that testimony rebutted the presumption created by G.S. § 8-50.1(b1)(4), which creates a presumption of parenthood where the paternity test shows a probability of parentage 97% or greater that "may be rebutted only by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence"). | 1 | 2 |
Carrington v. HOUSING AUTH. OF CITY OF DURHAMgreen2 sentences2005A fact-finder's observation "does not constitute evidence and cannot provide the basis for any finding of fact." Carrington v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 54 N.C.App. 158, 160 , 282 S.E.2d 541, 542 (1981) (citing Weidle v. Cloverdale Ford, 50 N.C.App. 555, 557 , 274 S.E.2d 263, 264 (1981)). 2005A fact-finder's observation "does not constitute evidence and cannot provide the basis for any finding of fact." Carrington v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 54 N.C.App. 158, 160 , 282 S.E.2d 541, 542 (1981) (citing Weidle v. Cloverdale Ford, 50 N.C.App. 555, 557 , 274 S.E.2d 263, 264 (1981)). | 1 | 2 |
Weidle v. Cloverdale Fordgreen2 sentences2005A fact-finder's observation "does not constitute evidence and cannot provide the basis for any finding of fact." Carrington v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 54 N.C.App. 158, 160 , 282 S.E.2d 541, 542 (1981) (citing Weidle v. Cloverdale Ford, 50 N.C.App. 555, 557 , 274 S.E.2d 263, 264 (1981)). 2005A fact-finder's observation "does not constitute evidence and cannot provide the basis for any finding of fact." Carrington v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 54 N.C.App. 158, 160 , 282 S.E.2d 541, 542 (1981) (citing Weidle v. Cloverdale Ford, 50 N.C.App. 555, 557 , 274 S.E.2d 263, 264 (1981)). | 1 | 2 |
Garrison v. Garrisongreen2 sentences2019See Garrison v. Garrison, 87 N.C. 2019See Garrison v. Garrison , 87 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fowlergreen2 sentences1994The trial court should have allowed for defendant's paternity test because "a defendant's right to a blood test is a substantial right and ... upon defendant's motion, the court must order the test when it is possible to do so." State v. Fowler, 277 N.C. 305 , 177 S.E.2d 385, 387 (1970). 1994The trial court should have allowed for defendant's paternity test because "a defendant's right to a blood test is a substantial right and ... upon defendant's motion, the court must order the test when it is possible to do so." State v. Fowler, 277 N.C. 305 , 177 S.E.2d 385, 387 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Withrow v. Webb
green
2 sentences2009App. 67 , 280 S.E.2d 22 (1981), this Court affirmed the dismissal of a father’s motion to compel a paternity test on the grounds of res judicata where the child was “born of the marriage between [the mother] and [the father,]” and the father previously admitted paternity and requested child support during an action for alimony, child support, and custody. 2009In Withrow v. Webb, 53 N.C.App. 67 , 280 S.E.2d 22 (1981), this Court affirmed the dismissal of a father's motion to compel a paternity test on the grounds of res judicata where the child was "born of the marriage between [the mother] and [the father,]" and the father previously admitted paternity and requested child support during an action for alimony, child support, and custody. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
County of Durham DSS Ex Rel. Stevons v. Charles
neutral
1 sentence2008Stat. § 110-132 “seeking to set aside his acknowledgment of paternity and seeking a paternity test.” Id. at 506 , 642 S.E.2d at 483 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Wake County, Ex Rel. Carrington v. Townes
green
2 sentences2001Thus, the Supreme Court held the defendant was not entitled to counsel at the paternity hearing since “the necessary menace to personal liberty is clearly absent at that legal stage.” Id. at 337 , 293 S.E.2d at 98 . 2001Thus, the Supreme Court held the defendant was not entitled to counsel at the paternity hearing since “the necessary menace to personal liberty is clearly absent at that legal stage.” Id. at 337 , 293 S.E.2d at 98 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Beyer v. Metze
green
1 sentence2000Ct. App. 1998) (holding that Louisiana’s enactment of UIFSA prevented the defendant from asserting a paternity defense since his paternity had already been established by an Iowa court); Beyer v. Metze, 482 S.E.2d 789 (S.C. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Villanueva v. Office of the Attorney General of Texas
green
2 sentences2000Ct. App. 1997) (holding that South Carolina’s enactment of UIFSA prevented the defendant from asserting the defense of non-parentage since an Ohio family court had already determined paternity); Villanueva v. Office of the Attorney General of Texas, 935 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that Texas’ enactment of UIFSA explicitly forbade a paternity defense when paternity had been established by another legal proceeding). 2000Ct. App. 1997) (holding that South Carolina’s enactment of UIFSA prevented the defendant from asserting the defense of non-parentage since an Ohio family court had already determined paternity); Villanueva v. Office of the Attorney General of Texas, 935 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that Texas’ enactment of UIFSA explicitly forbade a paternity defense when paternity had been established by another legal proceeding). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Jones v. Patience
green
1 sentence2000App. 434 , 466 S.E.2d 720 , disc. review *547 denied, 343 N.C. 307 , 471 S.E.2d 72 (1996), “[d]efendant offered no evidence that any other man had acknowledged paternity of the minor child . . and denied defendant’s request for a paternity test. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Jones v. Patience
green
1 sentence2000App. 434 , 466 S.E.2d 720 , disc. review *547 denied, 343 N.C. 307 , 471 S.E.2d 72 (1996), “[d]efendant offered no evidence that any other man had acknowledged paternity of the minor child . . and denied defendant’s request for a paternity test. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
McNamara v. Wilmington Mall Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence2000App. 434 , 466 S.E.2d 720 , disc. review *547 denied, 343 N.C. 307 , 471 S.E.2d 72 (1996), “[d]efendant offered no evidence that any other man had acknowledged paternity of the minor child . . and denied defendant’s request for a paternity test. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.