Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 N.C. 103 - Parker v. Taylor.

Parker v. Taylor.’s Empirical Analysis

1903

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
April 1958
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1958

4 state decisions

20190319101920193019401950decided

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.

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

  1. “There was no error. The line was located by a judgment to which the plaintiff and those under whom these defendants claim were parties. The plaintiff, who was defendant in the former action, did not therein raise any issue as to title and have it tried, as he might have done, and the adjudication as to this being the true boundary is res judicata . The judgment of the clerk `determining the location' of the line is authorized by the statute, and is conclusive of that fact upon parties and privies to said action.”
    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.