Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 N.C. App. 675 - Condellone v. Condellone

129 N.C. App. 675 - Condellone v. Condellone’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 136 N.C. App. 247 - Bookholt v. Bookholt (1999), 137 N.C. App. 547 - Condellone v. Condellone (2000)

26 state decisions

160199820002010decided

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 White v. White · 125 N.C. App. 600 - T&T Development Co. v. Southern National Bank of South Carolina · 77 N.C. App. 808 - McMiller v. McMiller · Moore v. Moore · Harris v. Harris

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

  1. “). However, In finding that the defendant is able to perform a separation agreement, the trial court is not required to make a specific finding of the defendant's”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'The plaintiff must wait until payments have become due and the obligor has failed to comply. Plaintiff must then file suit for the amount of accrued arrearage, reduce her claim to judgment, and, if the defendant fails to satisfy it, secure satisfaction by execution. As is so often the case, when the defendant persists in his refusal to comply, the plaintiff must resort to this remedy repeatedly to secure her rights under the agreement as the payments become due and the defendant fails to comply.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine is preliminary and is subject to change depending on the actual evidence offered at trial. The granting or denying of a motion in limine is not appeal-able. To preserve the evidentiary issue for appeal where a motion in limine has been granted, the non-movant must attempt to introduce the evidence at trial.”
    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.