178 N.C. App. 367 - Finger v. Gaston County’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2022
4 state decisions
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 143 N.C. App. 97 - Data General Corp. v. County of Durham · Cabarrus County v. Systel Business Equipment Company, Inc. · 101 N.C. App. 405 - Cincinnati Thermal Spray, Inc. v. Pender County · Lee v. Wake County · 171 N.C. App. 423 - Cabarrus Cty. v. SYSTEL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT CO., INC.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No obligation may be incurred in a program, function, or activity accounted for in a fund included in the budget ordinance unless the budget ordinance includes an appropriation authorizing the obligation and an unencumbered balance remains in the appropriation sufficient to pay in the current fiscal year the sums obligated by the transaction for the current fiscal year. ... If an obligation is evidenced by a contract or agreement requiring the payment of money. . . the contract [or] agreement. . . shall include on its face a certificate stating that the instrument has been preaudited .... The certificate . .. shall be signed by the finance officer or any deputy finance officer approved for this purpose by the governing board .... An obligation incurred in violation of this subsection is invalid and may not be enforced. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In the instant case, Data General has failed to make a showing that the required preaudit certificate exists, and none is evidenced in the record. Furthermore, Durham County has argued that no such certificate exists. As there is insufficient evidence in the record that the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 159-28 (a) have been met, we conclude that no valid contract was formed between Data General and Durham County, and Durham County therefore has not waived its sovereign immunity to be sued (and Data General may not maintain a suit) for contract damages.”
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.