173 N.C. App. 354 - Roberts v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Pembee Mfg. Corp. v. Cape Fear Const. Co., Inc. · Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem · 130 N.C. App. 729 - Bruce-Terminix Company v. Zurich Ins. Co. · 139 N.C. App. 778 - Gaunt v. Pittaway · Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Hood
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[A]bsent fraud or oppression ... parties to a contract have an affirmative duty to read and understand a written contract before signing it." Park v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 159 N.C.App. 120, 126 , 582 S.E.2d 375, 380 (2003). And, when "interpreting contract language, the presumption is that the parties intended what the language used clearly expresses, and the contract must be construed to mean what on its face it purports to mean." Stewart v. Stewart, 141 N.C.App. 236, 240 , 541 S.E.2d 209, 212 (2000) (discussing Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Hood, 226 N.C. 706, 710 , 40 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1946)).”
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.