Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 127 N.C. App. 304 - Trantham v. Lane

127 N.C. App. 304 - Trantham v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2012

12 state decisions

100199720002010decided

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 112 N.C. App. 604 - Taylor v. Ashburn · 122 N.C. App. 198 - Epps v. Duke University, Inc. · 109 N.C. App. 379 - Whitaker v. Clark · 124 N.C. App. 35 - Moore v. Evans · Whitaker v. Clark

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

  1. “[i]f the plaintiff fails to advance any allegations in his or her complaint other than those relating to a defendant’s official duties, the complaint does not state a claim against a defendant in his or her individual capacity, and instead, is treated as a claim against defendant in his official capacity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The general rule regarding official immunity is: “ ‘As long as a public officer lawfully exercises the judgment and discretion with which he is invested by virtue of his office, . . . keeps within the scope of his official authority, and acts without malice or corruption, he is protected from liability .’ ” This Court has also held that, while “named defendants may be shielded from liability in their official capacities, they remain personally liable for any actions which may have been corrupt, malicious or perpetrated outside and beyond the scope of official duties.” To sustain the personal or individual capacity suit, the plaintiff must initially make a prima facie showing that the defendant-official’s tortious conduct falls within one of the immunity exceptions, i.e., that the official’s conduct is malicious, corrupt, or outside the scope of official authority.”
    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.