Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 N.C. App. 197 - Ramey v. Easley

178 N.C. App. 197 - Ramey v. Easley’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
July 2011
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 49 U.S.C. § 14501 · 49 U.S.C. § 41713

Relies on Vig v. United States · City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, Inc. · Summey v. Barker · Adams v. North Carolina Department of Natural & Economic Resources · Carriker v. Carriker

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

  1. “was removed from the Wrecker Rotation Services List for failing to: (1) respond to at least 75% of the calls made to him by the Highway Patrol; (2) maintain a current Department of Transportation inspection sticker on his large wrecker; and (3) have proper cables installed on his wreckers. .. . .[The p]laintiff sought a declaratory judgment for the wrecker rotation regulations to be declared illegal. He assert[ed that] federal law preempt[ed] the Highway Patrol’s ability to establish regulations for private wrecker companies to be included on its Wrecker Rotation Services List.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]n the interest of public safety, the Highway Patrol has delegated authority to promulgate regulations setting forth the requirements a private wrecker service must meet in order to be included and remain on the Highway Patrol’s Wrecker Rotation Services List. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-184 ; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-188 . The challenged regulations clearly relate to public highway safety. The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “When reviewing a lower court's grant of summary judgment, our standard of review is de novo.”
    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.