In Re Eubanks
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
The petitioner is not asking to have his matrimonial status declared, as was the case in Baumann v. Baumann, 250 N. Y., 382, nor his legitimacy established, as appeared in Beresford v. Attorney-General, L. R. (1918) Prob., 33, note 12 A. L. R., 86. See, also, note, 68 A. L. R., 129. He seeks only to have his racial status determined in an ex parte proceeding with no contradicter present. Primarily, his purpose partakes of a social matter rather than a legal controversy.
The proceeding is not within the scope or purview of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, chap. 102, Public Laws 1931. Poore…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Baumann v. BaumannNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Poore v. . PooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
3Cited by7 opinions
- North Carolina Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Lide v. MearsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Taos County Board of Education v. SedilloNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1940
- Allison v. . SharpSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Angell v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.