Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 N.C. App. 147 - Ingram v. Smith

16 N.C. App. 147 - Ingram v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
January 2005
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2005

10 state decisions

401972198019902000decided

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 Fulp v. Fulp · Hunsucker v. High Point Bending & Chair Co. · Edwards v. Hamill · Cox v. Shaw · Prentzas v. Prentzas

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

  1. “G.S. 1-22 is an enabling not a disabling statute. It means that if at the time of the death of the debtor the claim is not barred, action may be brought within one year after the grant of letters to the personal representative in those cases which, in regular course, but for the interposition of this section, the claim would become barred in less time than one year from such grant. Benson v. Bennett, 112 N.C. 505 , 17 S.E. 432 (1893). G.S. 1-22 was not intended to be a restriction on the statute of limitations so that a claim should become barred by the lapse of a year from the grant of letters, where, in regular course, but for this section, it would not be barred until a later date. Benson v. Bennett, supra. In addition, in counting the time of the statute of limitations, where the debtor is deceased, the time from his death until the appointment of the personal representative is not included, provided that the estate is administered within ten years after the death. Humphrey v. Stephens, 191 N.C. 101 , 131 S.E. 383 (1925); Prentzas v. Prentzas, 260 N.C. 101 , 131 S.E.2d 678 (1963).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “§ 1-22. Death before limitation expires; action by or against personal representative or collector. If a person against whom an action may be brought dies before the expiration of the time limited for the commencement thereof, and the cause of action survives, an action may be commenced against his personal representative or collector after the expiration of that time; provided, the action is brought or notice of the claim upon which the action is based is presented to the personal representative or collector within the time specified for the presentation of claims in G.S. 28A-19-3.”
    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.