Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 N.C. App. 310 - Thomas Ex Rel. Thomas v. Sellers

142 N.C. App. 310 - Thomas Ex Rel. Thomas v. Sellers’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 2023

14 state decisions

120200120102020decided

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 110 N.C. App. 707 - Messick v. Catawba County, NC · Messick v. CATAWBA COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA · Grad v. Kaasa · Pitts v. Village Inn Pizza, Inc. · 124 N.C. App. 35 - Moore v. Evans

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

  1. “An issue is “genuine” if it can be proven by substantial evidence and a fact is “material” if it would constitute or irrevocably establish any material element of a claim or a defense. A party moving for summary judgment may prevail if it meets the burden (1) of proving an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or (2) of showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim. Generally this means that on “undisputed aspects of the opposing evidential forecast,” where there is no genuine issue of fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the moving party meets this burden, the non-moving party must in turn either show that a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial or must provide an excuse for not doing so.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “To maintain a suit against a public official in his/her individual capacity [at the summary judgment stage], the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that the official’s actions (under color of authority) are sufficient to pierce the cloak of official immunity. Actions that are malicious, corrupt or outside the scope of official duties will pierce the cloak of official immunity, thus holding the official liable for his acts like any private individual.”
    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.