Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 N.C. App. 589 - Sharp v. Teague

113 N.C. App. 589 - Sharp v. Teague’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
4
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably 149 N.C. App. 777 - Harrold v. Dowd (2002), 140 N.C. App. 106 - NationsBank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Parker (2000)

63 state decisions

2401994200020102020decided

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 American Air Filter Co. v. Federal Trade Commission · 38 N.C. App. 50 - Ballenger v. Crowell · Watts v. Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc. · Pittman v. FIRST PROTECTION LIFE INS. COMPANY · MacLellan v. Throckmorton

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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(c) Except where otherwise provided by statute, a cause of action for malpractice arising out of the performance of or failure to perform professional services shall be deemed to accrue at the time of the occurrence of the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action: Provided that whenever there is bodily injury to the person, economic or monetary loss, or a defect in or damage to property which originates under circumstances making the injury, loss, defect or damage not readily apparent to the claimant at the time of its origin, and the injury, loss, defect or damage is discovered or should reasonably be discovered by the claimant two or more years after the occurrence of the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action, suit must be commenced within one year from the date discovery is made: Provided nothing herein shall be construed to reduce the statute of limitation in any such case below three years. Provided further, that in no event shall an action be commenced more than four years from the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action ....”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[m]ere generalities and conclusory allegations of fraud will not suffice”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “open question in North Carolina as to whether we recognize the ‘continuous representation’ doctrine.” Id. at 795. However, in attempting to characterize the ramifications of application, the court summarized that doctrine by saying that”
    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.