144 N.C. App. 258 - Chandak v. Electronic Interconnect Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Worthington v. Bynum · Clark v. Clark · Clark v. Brown · LIBBY HILL SEAFOOD RESTAURANTS v. Owens · 98 N.C. App. 423 - Chicopee, Inc. v. Sims Metal Works, Inc.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any judgment rendered by the magistrate is a judgment of the district court and is appealable to the district court for a trial de novo.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Panel therefore answers the substance of the issues submitted by Claimants as follows: 1. Were claimants damaged by fraud of respondents in connection with the sale of the business? ANSWER: No. 2. Were claimants damaged by deceptive trade practices of respondents in the sale of the business? ANSWER: No. 3. Were claimants damaged by breach of fiduciary duty of respondents in purchasing the Global property? ANSWER: No. 4. Were claimants damaged by deceptive trade practices of respondents in respondents’ purchase of the Global property? ANSWER: No. 5. Did respondents abuse the process of the court in the summary ejectment action instituted against claimant Electronic Interconnect Corporation and Global Circuits of North Carolina, Inc.? ANSWER: No. 6. Did respondents breach the lease agreement with Global Circuits of North Carolina, Inc.? ANSWER: Yes. 7. What amount of damages is claimant Global Circuits of North Carolina, Inc. entitled to recover from respondents for breach of the lease? ANSWER: $15,000. Therefore, claimants Electronic Interconnect Corporation, Bharat Barai, M.D. and Panna Barai, M.D. are not entitled to any award of damages against the respondents, and all claims made by these claimants against the respondents in this arbitration are hereby denied. Claimant Global Circuits of North Carolina, Inc. is entitled to an award of damages against respondents, Govind Chandak and Madhu Chandak in the amount of $15,000.00, and this claim by Global Circuits of North Ca”
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.