113 N.C. App. 697 - Varner v. Bryan’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Broussard, 129 N.C. App. 305 - Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. v. Smith (1998)
3 federal appellate · 41 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · St. Amant v. Thompson · Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. · Rosenblatt v. Baer
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he movant may meet this burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an affirmative defense which could bar the claim. (Citations omitted.) By making a motion for summary judgment, a defendant may force a plaintiff to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff will be able to make out at least a prima facie case at trial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) A valid contract existed between the plaintiff and a third person, conferring upon the plaintiff some contractual right against the third person; (2) the outsider had knowledge of the plaintiff's contract with the third person; (3) the outsider intentionally induced the third person not to perform his contract with the plaintiff; (4) in doing so the outsider acted without justification; and (5) the outsider's act caused the plaintiff actual damages.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where the plaintiff is a `public official' and the allegedly defamatory statement concerns his official conduct, he must prove that the statement was `made with `actual malice' - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.'”
3 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.