149 N.C. App. 475 - Flitt v. Flitt’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
52 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Veazey v. City of Durham · Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc. · Goldston v. American Motors Corp. · Bernick v. Jurden · 119 N.C. App. 730 - North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Page
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The moving party must show that the affected right is a substantial one, and that deprivation of that right, if not corrected before appeal from final judgment, will potentially injure the moving party.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“An interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[g]enerally, there is no right to appeal from an interlocutory order.”
2 later decisions 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.