154 N.C. App. 34 - Pierce v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably 175 N.C. App. 474 - Purvis v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Service Corp. (2006), 166 N.C. App. 312 - Eckard v. Smith (2004)
24 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 126 Ill. 2d 150 - Vaughn v. Speaker · 86 N.C. App. 1 - Johnson v. Bollinger · Johnson v. Bollinger · Duke University v. Stainback · Crossman v. Moore
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“John Daniel Johnson, a legal entity, is transformed, after death, into the estate of John Daniel Johnson, a legal entity. . . . [T]he life and estate of John Daniel Johnson are inextricably dependent: Death of the person is a point at which a legal transformation to an estate can occur. Once death occurs, the legal entity known as the life of John Daniel Johnson can never again have legal standing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A misnomer is a 'mistake in name; giving an incorrect name to the person in accusation, indictment, pleading, deed, or other instrument.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here, the record shows that Ms. Pierce initiated the instant action on 28 April 2000, within the statute of limitations .... However, Ms. Pierce sued the decedent individually instead of bringing the suit against the personal representative or collector of defendant’s estate. The summons and complaint were then served on the personal representative of defendant’s estate, Roby Daniel Johnson. Instead of signing for the summons and complaint in his capacity as personal representative, Roby Daniel Johnson signed the return receipt “Daniel Johnson,” the name he shared with the deceased defendant. By so doing, the personal representative of Johnson’s estate missed an opportunity to inform Ms. Pierce that John Daniel Johnson was dead, and effectively, conducted the defense of the action as though John Daniel Johnson was still alive. This misrepresentation as to the physical and legal existence of John Daniel Johnson was continued by the subsequent conduct of the purported “Attorney for Defendant.” On 6 June 2000, the motion to dismiss was filed in the name of John Daniel Johnson. Although the motion to dismiss did raise the issue of Ms. Pierce’s failure to name a real party in interest and failure to join a necessary party, since it was signed by the purported “Attorney for Defendant,” it did not place Ms. Pierce on notice that John Daniel Johnson was in fact dead and that she needed to proceed against the personal representative of John Daniel Johnson’s estate. Additionally, after”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Muhammed v. Welch
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.