100 N.C. App. 490 - Allen v. Rupard’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 146 N.C. App. 370 - Grant Construction Co. v. McRae (2001), 160 N.C. App. 697 - Wood v. Weldon (2003)
2 district · 33 state decisions
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 Veazey v. City of Durham · In Re the Appeal From the Civil Penalty · State v. Fulcher · Worthington v. Bynum · Childers v. Parker's, Inc.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(j) Notwithstanding anv other subsection in this section, in the event that a judgment is obtained which is insufficient to compensate the subrogation claim of the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Carrier, or in the event that a settlement has been agreed upon by the employee and the third party, either party may apply to the resident superior court judge . . . to determine the subrogation amount. After notice to the employer and the insurance carrier, after an opportunity to be heard bv all interested parties, and with or without the consent of the employer, the judge shall determine, in his discretion, the amount, if anv. of the employer’s lien and the amount of cost of the third-partv litigation to be shared between the employee and employer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““make a reasoned choice, a judicial value judgment, which is factually supported . . . [by] findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to provide for meaningful appellate review.” Where the trial court makes sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, the due process rights of the employer have been protected.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We realize that subsection (j) allows plaintiff a double recovery at the expense of the employer or carrier, in the discretion of the Superior Court judge. Nonetheless, since the language is clear and unambiguous, we must hold that the Legislature intended this possible result.”
1 later decision 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.