Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 NC 5 - Cahoon v. Brinkley

Cahoon v. Brinkley’s Empirical Analysis

1918

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
December 2004
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2004

13 state decisions

501918192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. “Where the defendant employs a counsel nonresident in this State, or even counsel in this State who does not reside in the county of trial, or who does not habitually attend that court, the judgment, for want of an answer, will not be set aside, for such neglect is inexcusable.”
    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.