Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 154 N.C. App. 402 - Smith v. Barbour

154 N.C. App. 402 - Smith v. Barbour’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 57 N.C. App. 650 - Anderson Chevrolet/Olds, Inc. v. Higgins · 130 N.C. App. 389 - Ellison v. Ramos · 136 N.C. App. 340 - McCullough v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. · 107 N.C. App. 745 - Lombroia v. Peek · 150 N.C. App. 250 - Rosero v. Blake

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

  1. “Both parents and third parties have a right to sue for custody. In a custody dispute between a parent and a non-parent, the non-parent must first establish that he has standing, based on a relationship with the child, to bring the action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(Emphasis added). While our case law makes clear that a defendant's motion for change of venue based on subsection (2) of section 1-83 is premature if filed before the answer, see id. , it is less clear what result issues when a motion for change of venue is filed at the same time as an answer, or is deemed to also amount to answer, as occurred in the instant case. In other words, the question is whether a motion to change venue based on the convenience of the witnesses filed contemporaneously with an answer is”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “‘[t]he court may change the place of trial . . . [w]hen the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.’ N.C.G.S. § 1-83(2) (1999). Whether to transfer venue for this reason, however, is a matter firmly within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned unless the court manifestly abused that discretion. Roanoke Properties v. Spruill Oil Co., 110 N.C. App. 443 , 429 S.E.2d 752 (1993).”
    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.