blood grouping test in North Carolina

9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1970–1996 0 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Wright v. Wrightgreen nc · 1972 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1976–1996 2 sentences 1981We noted that Wright v. Wright, 281 N.C. 159 , 188 S.E. 2d 317 (1972), had held that the portion of G.S. 8-50.1 applicable to criminal actions providing that the blood-grouping tests could be ordered in any criminal action “in which the question of paternity arises” also applied to civil actions. 1 We said in Williams v. Holland, supra: Thus, before a court is required to order a blood-grouping test in a civil action, the question of paternity must arise. 1981We noted that Wright v. Wright, 281 N.C. 159 , 188 S.E. 2d 317 (1972), had held that the portion of G.S. 8-50.1 applicable to criminal actions providing that the blood-grouping tests could be ordered in any criminal action “in which the question of paternity arises” also applied to civil actions. 1 We said in Williams v. Holland, supra: Thus, before a court is required to order a blood-grouping test in a civil action, the question of paternity must arise.	2	5
Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Mossgreen · 1941 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972 2 sentences 1972The Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring plaintiff, the child and defendant to submit to a blood-grouping test because it interpreted our decision in Eubanks v. Eubanks, 273 N.C. 189 , 159 S.E. 2d 562 (1968), as a clear holding that “the results of a blood-grouping test cannot be used to establish non-paternity if there was access “The law discussed in any opinion is set within the framework of the facts of that particular case . . . . ” Light Co. v. Moss, 220 N.C. 200, 208 , 17 S.E. 2d 10, 16 (1941). 1972The Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring plaintiff, the child and defendant to submit to a blood-grouping test because it interpreted our decision in Eubanks v. Eubanks, 273 N.C. 189 , 159 S.E. 2d 562 (1968), as a clear holding that “the results of a blood-grouping test cannot be used to establish non-paternity if there was access “The law discussed in any opinion is set within the framework of the facts of that particular case . . . . ” Light Co. v. Moss, 220 N.C. 200, 208 , 17 S.E. 2d 10, 16 (1941).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
John M. v. Paula T. green pa · 1990 1 sentence 1995Id. 571 A.2d at 1381-82 .	1	1995–1995
Ferris v. County of Santa Clara green scotus · 1990 1 sentence 1995Id. 571 A.2d at 1381-82 .	1	1995–1995
Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc. green nc · 1978 2 sentences 1985Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200 , 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978). 333 Judge Bulwinkle’s order requiring plaintiff, defendant and Jeffrey to submit to a blood grouping test is an interlocutory order and is not appealable as it does not affect a substantial right. 1985Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200 , 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978). 333 Judge Bulwinkle’s order requiring plaintiff, defendant and Jeffrey to submit to a blood grouping test is an interlocutory order and is not appealable as it does not affect a substantial right.	1	1985–1985
Davie County Department of Social Services ex rel. Brown v. Jones green ncctapp · 1983 1 sentence 1985Davie County Department of Social Services v. Jones, 62 N.C.	1	1985–1985
Johnson v. Johnson green ncctapp · 1970 2 sentences 1981App. 310 , 172 S.E. 2d 264 (1970), where Judge Vaughn, writing for the Court, expressed the view of other jurisdictions when he said: We do not reach, nor do we imply, an affirmative answer to the question of whether this defendant’s motion for a blood grouping test could have been allowed even if defendant had, by answer, denied paternity. 1981In the light of the facts of this case, in which the defendant was married to plaintiff in 1959 and lived with her until November 1968, seven years after the birth of their daughter and four years following the birth of their son, common sense, public policy and overriding consideration for the welfare of innocent children would seem to dictate the contrary, despite the broad language of G.S. 8-50.1. 7 N.C.	1	1981–1981
Williams v. Holland green ncctapp · 1978 1 sentence 1981If defendant in this case is barred by res judicata or estoppel from raising the issue of paternity as plaintiff contends, the statutorily imposed obligation of the court to order that the parties submit to blood-grouping tests never arose, and it was error for the court to enter such order. 39 N.C.	1	1981–1981
Peterson v. Peterson green haw · 1918 1 sentence 1976Hosiery Mills v. Burlington Industries, 285 N.C. 344 , 204 S.E. 2d 834 (1974); Fleek v. Fleek, 270 N.C. 736 , 155 S.E. 2d 290 (1967); Arakaki v. Arakaki, 54 Haw. 60 , 502 P. 2d 380 (1972); Peterson v. Peterson, 24 Haw. 239 (1918); Wurfel, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, 50 N.C.L.R. 21 (1971).	1	1976–1976
Fleek v. Fleek green nc · 1967 2 sentences 1976Hosiery Mills v. Burlington Industries, 285 N.C. 344 , 204 S.E. 2d 834 (1974); Fleek v. Fleek, 270 N.C. 736 , 155 S.E. 2d 290 (1967); Arakaki v. Arakaki, 54 Haw. 60 , 502 P. 2d 380 (1972); Peterson v. Peterson, 24 Haw. 239 (1918); Wurfel, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, 50 N.C.L.R. 21 (1971). 1976Hosiery Mills v. Burlington Industries, 285 N.C. 344 , 204 S.E. 2d 834 (1974); Fleek v. Fleek, 270 N.C. 736 , 155 S.E. 2d 290 (1967); Arakaki v. Arakaki, 54 Haw. 60 , 502 P. 2d 380 (1972); Peterson v. Peterson, 24 Haw. 239 (1918); Wurfel, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, 50 N.C.L.R. 21 (1971).	1	1976–1976
Arakaki v. Arakaki green haw · 1972 2 sentences 1976Hosiery Mills v. Burlington Industries, 285 N.C. 344 , 204 S.E. 2d 834 (1974); Fleek v. Fleek, 270 N.C. 736 , 155 S.E. 2d 290 (1967); Arakaki v. Arakaki, 54 Haw. 60 , 502 P. 2d 380 (1972); Peterson v. Peterson, 24 Haw. 239 (1918); Wurfel, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, 50 N.C.L.R. 21 (1971). 1976Hosiery Mills v. Burlington Industries, 285 N.C. 344 , 204 S.E. 2d 834 (1974); Fleek v. Fleek, 270 N.C. 736 , 155 S.E. 2d 290 (1967); Arakaki v. Arakaki, 54 Haw. 60 , 502 P. 2d 380 (1972); Peterson v. Peterson, 24 Haw. 239 (1918); Wurfel, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, 50 N.C.L.R. 21 (1971).	1	1976–1976
Cline v. Cline green ncctapp · 1969 1 sentence 1976“A proceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act is a civil proceeding ‘as in actions for alimony without divorce.’ G.S. 52A-12.” Cline v. Cline, 6 N.C.	1	1976–1976
Frances Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Burlington Industries, Inc. green nc · 1974 2 sentences 1976Hosiery Mills v. Burlington Industries, 285 N.C. 344 , 204 S.E. 2d 834 (1974); Fleek v. Fleek, 270 N.C. 736 , 155 S.E. 2d 290 (1967); Arakaki v. Arakaki, 54 Haw. 60 , 502 P. 2d 380 (1972); Peterson v. Peterson, 24 Haw. 239 (1918); Wurfel, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, 50 N.C.L.R. 21 (1971). 1976Hosiery Mills v. Burlington Industries, 285 N.C. 344 , 204 S.E. 2d 834 (1974); Fleek v. Fleek, 270 N.C. 736 , 155 S.E. 2d 290 (1967); Arakaki v. Arakaki, 54 Haw. 60 , 502 P. 2d 380 (1972); Peterson v. Peterson, 24 Haw. 239 (1918); Wurfel, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, 50 N.C.L.R. 21 (1971).	1	1976–1976
Eubanks v. Eubanks green nc · 1968 2 sentences 1972The Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring plaintiff, the child and defendant to submit to a blood-grouping test because it interpreted our decision in Eubanks v. Eubanks, 273 N.C. 189 , 159 S.E. 2d 562 (1968), as a clear holding that “the results of a blood-grouping test cannot be used to establish non-paternity if there was access “The law discussed in any opinion is set within the framework of the facts of that particular case . . . . ” Light Co. v. Moss, 220 N.C. 200, 208 , 17 S.E. 2d 10, 16 (1941). 1972The Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring plaintiff, the child and defendant to submit to a blood-grouping test because it interpreted our decision in Eubanks v. Eubanks, 273 N.C. 189 , 159 S.E. 2d 562 (1968), as a clear holding that “the results of a blood-grouping test cannot be used to establish non-paternity if there was access “The law discussed in any opinion is set within the framework of the facts of that particular case . . . . ” Light Co. v. Moss, 220 N.C. 200, 208 , 17 S.E. 2d 10, 16 (1941).	1	1972–1972
Burton v. Thompson neutral me · 1952 2 sentences 1970In Burton v. Thompson, 147 Me. 299 , 87 A. 2d 114 , the respondent in a bastardy proceeding moved for a blood grouping test. 1970In Burton v. Thompson, 147 Me. 299 , 87 A. 2d 114 , the respondent in a bastardy proceeding moved for a blood grouping test.	1	1970–1970

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50.1 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 49-2 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 54 (1935–2007) PA 10 (1936–1995) NC 9 (1970–1996) TX 5 (1990–2008) MA 5 (1962–2012) NJ 5 (1940–1993) NE 4 (1985–1992) DE 4 (1978–1990) CT 3 (1986–1994) MO 3 (1969–1981) OH 2 (1951–1992) IN 2 (1973–1985)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check