133 N.C. App. 299 - Buchanan v. Hight’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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

1. “In Corum , our Supreme Court held that when an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary damages is brought against “the State, its agencies, and/or its officials acting in their official capacities” in state court neither the State nor its officials are considered “persons” within the meaning of the statute. Thus, a claim under section 1983 cannot be made against those entities. This rule was applied to sheriffs by this Court in Messick and Slade . . . . Here, plaintiffs seek monetary damages for the alleged violations of section 1983; however, under Messick and Slade we conclude no recovery is available.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boyd v. Robeson County · 169 N.C. App. 460 - Boyd v. Robeson County

2. “In their fourth assignment of error, plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by holding that the defendant was a “state official” and thus was not subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Plaintiffs argue that because sheriffs are elected by the voters of individual counties and because numerous statutes refer to the local powers of sheriffs, they are local officials. Plaintiffs cite Hull v. Oldham, 104 N.C.App. 29 , 407 S.E.2d 611 , disc, review denied, 330 N.C. 441 , 412 S.E.2d 72 (1991) as authority for that assertion. In Hull , this Court held that claims against a sheriff and deputies were properly instituted in superior court and were not required to be brought before the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Id. Here, plaintiffs’ arguments are not persuasive because the only two appellate decisions in this State decided since Hull and dealing with section 1983 as applied to sheriffs hold to the contrary. In Corum v. University of North Carolina, 330 N.C. 761, 771 , 413 S.E.2d 276, 282 , rehearing denied, 331 N.C. 558 , 418 S.E.2d 664 , cert. denied, 506 U.S. 985 , 113 S.Ct. 493 , 121 L.Ed.2d 431 (1992), our Supreme Court held that when an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary damages is brought against “the State, its agencies, and/or its officials acting in their official capacities” in state court neither the State nor its officials are considered “persons” within the meaning of the statute. Thus, a claim under section 1983 cannot be made against those”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Henderson Amusement, Inc. v. Good

3. “plaintiffs' arguments [that a Sheriff is a `person' under § 1983] are not persuasive because the only two appellate decisions in this State decided since Hull and dealing with section 1983 as applied to sheriffs hold to the contrary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boyd v. Robeson County