Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 N.C. App. 427 - Rutledge v. Rutledge

10 N.C. App. 427 - Rutledge v. Rutledge’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably In Re JAA (2005), 175 N.C. App. 66 - In re J.A.A. (2005)

34 state decisions

22019711980199020002010decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on State v. Propst · State v. Turner · State v. Carter · Hagins v. Redevelopment Commission of Greensboro · State v. . Sullivan

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A trial judge has a duty to properly inquire into the competency of a litigant in a civil trial or proceeding when circumstances are brought to the judge's attention, which raise a substantial question as to whether the litigant is non compos mentis.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]hether the circumstances which are brought to the attention of the trial judge are sufficient to raise a substantial question as to the party's competency is a matter to be initially determined in the sound discretion of the trial judge.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(b)(2) Infants, etc., Defend by Guardian Ad Litem. — In actions or special proceedings when any of the defendants are infants or incompetent persons, whether residents or nonresidents of this State, they must defend by general or testamentary guardian, if they have any within this State or by guardian ad litem appointed as hereinafter provided; and if they have no known general or testamentary guardian in the State, and any of them have been summoned, the court in which said action or special proceeding is pending, upon motion of any of the parties, may appoint some discreet person to act as guardian ad litem, to defend in behalf of such infants, or incompetent persons, and fix and tax his fee as part of the costs. ....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.