143 N.C. App. 361 - Soderlund v. Kuch’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably 231 N.C. App. 214 - Ge Betz, Inc. v. Conrad (2013), 165 N.C. App. 68 - Godfrey v. Res-Care, Inc. (2004)
27 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 Dickens v. Puryear · Pembee Mfg. Corp. v. Cape Fear Const. Co., Inc. · Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.A. · 130 N.C. App. 729 - Bruce-Terminix Company v. Zurich Ins. Co. · Waddle v. Sparks
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We recognize that with the exception of the United States Supreme Court, federal appellate decisions are not binding upon either the appellate or trial courts of this State.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[The] [p]laintiff’s only allegation regarding his incompetency is' that his mental condition “cause [d] him to be incapable of understanding his legal rights, making or communicating important decisions about those rights or bringing a lawsuit. ...” As stated above, the term “affairs” in § 35A-1101(7) encompasses more than just one transaction. See id. Moreover, evidence presented during discovery showed that since leaving NCSA in 1986, plaintiff arranged for places to live, signed leases, cooked, went shopping, held several jobs, attended college at two institutions, obtained and renewed driver’s licenses from three states, drove vehicles, owned farmland, traveled and lived in foreign countries, produced a ballet, and created music. The evidence is sufficient to show that plaintiff could and did manage his own affairs and make important decisions concerning his person and property after his 1986 departure from NCSA. Thus, we hold plaintiff was not incompetent as per § 35A-1101(7), and plaintiff’s mental condition did not warrant tolling the three-year statute of limitations of § 1-52(5).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“With respect to the applicability of the statute of limitations and the existence of all necessary elements of both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, the trial court found that plaintiff’s claim lacked a genuine issue of material fact. In finding no genuine issue of material fact as to the statute of limitations, we conclude that [the trial court] was necessarily ruling that plaintiff’s alleged incompetence did not rise to the level of incompetence, as defined in § 35A-1101(7), necessary to toll the statute of limitations. [The trial court] thereby dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, and plaintiff now appeals to this Court.”
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.