112 N.C. App. 470 - Gregory v. Floyd’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2011
14 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 107 N.C. App. 154 - Shear v. Stevens Building Co. · Finley v. Glenn Et Ux. · Mozingo v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. · Cleveland Realty Company v. Hobbs · Reed v. Elmore
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ll inferences of fact from the proof offered at the hearing must be looked at in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The moving party has the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where lots are sold and conveyed by reference to a map or plat which represents a division of a tract of land into streets, lots, parks and playgrounds, a purchaser of a lot or lots acquires the right to have the streets, parks and playgrounds kept open for his reasonable use, and this right is not subject to revocation except by agreement. It is said that such streets, parks and playgrounds are dedicated to the use of lot owners in the development. In a strict sense it is not a dedication, for a dedication must be made to the public and not to a part of the public. It is a right in the nature of an easement appurtenant. Whether it be called an easement or a dedication, the right of the lot owners to the use of the streets, parks and playgrounds may not be extinguished, altered or diminished except by agreement or estoppel. This is true because the existence of the right was an inducement to and a part of the consideration for the purchase of the lots.”
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.