121 N.C. App. 33 - Hieb v. Lowery’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2017
20 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 Calloway v. Ford Motor Company · 49 N.C. App. 631 - Carr v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp. · 102 N.C. App. 247 - Carter Ex Rel. Carter v. Clowers · 38 N.C. App. 728 - Hoglen v. James · Bank v. Sharpe
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“7. The Plaintiffs have instituted a second action against St. Paul Fire and Marine and Hartford Insurance Company ... to determine the respective rights of the parties to the benefits of the Hartford underinsured motorist coverage and to determine the amount of such coverage. 8. That on or about August 28, 1992, an order was entered in that action by the Honorable Robert P. Johnston which holds that ... Hartford is allowed to reduce its limits by the amount of worker[s'] compensation paid or to be paid to Plaintiff and further holding that the proceeds of the Hartford underinsured policy are subject to the lien of St. Paul Insurance Company pursuant to North Carolina General Statute[s] [s]ection 97-10.2. That action is now on appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. This Court is bound by the Order of Judge Johnston unless and until said Order is modified by the Court of Appeals or any other Court of competent jurisdiction. This Court has not addressed the issues raised in that action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hieb v. Lowery · Murray v. Moody“(1) a judgment insufficient to compensate the subrogation claim of the workers' compensation insurance carrier or (2) a settlement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hieb v. Lowery · Murray v. Moody“[St. Paul] contends that this Court should review the award of attorney's fees to [Monnett].... As defendant has failed to adequately preserve these issues for appellate review, we need not address [this argument] at this juncture.”
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.