Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

73 N.C. App. 331

326 S.E.2d 78

Heavner v. Heavner

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1985-03-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“directs some further proceeding preliminary to the final decree.”

quoted by 21 later decisions, including 264 N.C. App. 313 - Estate of Tipton by and Through Tipton v. Delta Sigma Phi Fraternity, Inc., 253 N.C. App. 413 - Hanna v. Wright

“However, there are two avenues by which a party may immediately appeal an interlocutory order or judgment. First, if the order or judgment is final as to some but not all of the claims or parties, and the trial court certifies the case for appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b), an immediate appeal will lie. Second, an appeal is permitted under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-277 (a) and 7A-27(d)(1) if the trial court's decision deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be lost absent immediate review.”

quoted by 12 later decisions, including 264 N.C. App. 313 - Estate of Tipton by and Through Tipton v. Delta Sigma Phi Fraternity, Inc., 247 N.C. App. 489 - Blue v. Mountaire Farms, Inc.

Relies on Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc. · Lamb v. Wedgewood South Corp. · 60 N.C. App. 331 - Blackwelder v. State Department of Human Resources

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-03-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Jones v. Trojak (1993), 81 N.C. App. 675 - Dunlap v. Dunlap (1986)

54 state decisions

4201985199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PARKER, Judge.

¶1 No appeal lies from an interlocutory order or ruling of a trial judge unless the order or ruling deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he would lose if the order or ruling is not reviewed before the final judgment. Blackwelder v. State of North Carolina Department of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 299 S.E. 2d 777 (1983); G.S. 1-277; G.S. 7A-27. An order is interlocutory if it does not determine the issues, but directs some further proceeding preliminary to the final decree. Waters 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. Davie County Department of Social Services v. Jones, 62 N.C. App. 142, 301 S.E. 2d 926 (1983). We elect, however, to treat this appeal as a petition for certiorari, allow it, and pass upon the merits. See Lamb v. Wedgewood South Corp., 308 N.C. 419, 302 S.E. 2d 868 (1983); Patrick v. Hurdle, 16 N.C. App. 28, 190 S.E. 2d 871, cert. denied 282 N.C. 304, 192 S.E. 2d 195 (1972).

¶2 General Statute 8-50.1(b) allows the trial court to order a blood grouping test in any civil action in which the question of parentage arises. Defendant argues that as the question of parentage had already been decided, the trial court erred in ordering the blood grouping test. We agree. Plaintiffs guilty plea to the criminal charge of nonsupport of Jeffrey, under G.S. 14-322, is an evidentiary admission of paternity. Wilkes County v. Gentry, 311 N.C. 580, 319 S.E. 2d 224 (1984). See McCormick on Evidence § 265 (2nd ed. 1972). Additionally, plaintiff is barred from raising the issue of paternity by his own allegation in the complaint that Jeffrey was born of his marriage to defendant. Withrow v. Webb, 53 N.C. App. 67, 280 S.E. 2d 22 (1981). See Sutton v. Sutton, 56 N.C. App. 740, 289 S.E. 2d 618 (1982). As the parentage of Jeffrey is not at issue the trial court erred in ordering a blood test pursuant to G.S. 8-50.1, and this order is

¶3 Vacated.

Judges Arnold and Wells concur.
/73/ncapp/331 · .json · Public domain