130 N.C. App. 657 - Fender v. Deaton’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 173 N.C. App. 77 - In re A.B.D. (2005), In Re ABD (2005)
32 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 Harris v. Maready · Pittman v. FIRST PROTECTION LIFE INS. COMPANY · Wiles v. Welparnel Const. Co., Inc. · Sink v. Easter · 98 N.C. App. 147 - Johnson v. City of Raleigh
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] court may only obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant by the issuance of summons and service of process by one of the statutorily specified methods.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[s]ervice of process upon one not authorized by appointment or by law to be served or to accept service of process results in a lack of jurisdiction over the party attempted to be served.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(2) Registered or Certified Mail, Signature Confirmation, or Designated Delivery Service.Before judgment by default may be had on service by registered or certified mail, signature confirmation, or by a designated delivery service authorized pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7502 (f)(2) with delivery receipt, the serving party shall file an affidavit with the court showing proof of such service in accordance with the requirements of G.S. 1-75.10(4), 1-75.10(5), or 1-75.10(6), as appropriate. This affidavit together with the return or delivery receipt or copy of the proof of delivery provided by the United States Postal Service signed by the person who received the mail or delivery if not the addressee raises a presumption that the person who received the mail or delivery and signed the receipt was an agent of the addressee authorized by appointment or by law to be served or to accept service of process or was a person of suitable age and discretion residing in the addressee's dwelling house or usual place of abode. In the event the presumption described in the preceding sentence is rebutted by proof that the person who received the receipt at the addressee's dwelling house or usual place of abode was not a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, the statute of limitation may not be pleaded as a defense if the action was initially commenced within the period of limitation and service of process is completed within 60 days from the date the service is declared invalid. S”
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.