157 N.C. App. 339 - Mims v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Sharpe v. Worland · 132 N.C. App. 341 - Hudson-Cole Development Corp. v. Beemer · Crist v. Moffatt · Cates v. Wilson · Sims ex rel. Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Orders that are interlocutory are subject to immediate appeal when they affect a substantial right of a party. [Mims v. Wright, 157 N.C. App. 339, 341 , 578 S.E.2d 606, 608 (2003)] “ ‘[W]hen, as here, a party asserts a statutory privilege which directly relates to the matter to be disclosed under an interlocutory discovery order, and the assertion of such privilege is not otherwise frivolous or insubstantial, the challenged order affects a substantial right. . . .’ ” Id. (quoting Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 166 , 522 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1999)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As a general rule, discovery orders are interlocutory and therefore not immediately appealable.”
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.