179 N.C. App. 673 - Walden v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Viar v. North Carolina Department of Transportation · Woodson v. Rowland · Steingress v. Steingress · 158 N.C. App. 208 - Draughon v. Harnett County Board of Education · 106 N.C. App. 397 - Hoots v. Pryor
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[the landowner’s] lease provision does not provide it control over the premises. In Holcomb , the landlord could remove any pet within forty-eight hours. 358 N.C. at 508-09 , 597 S.E.2d at 715 . Under section 7 of its lease with [the tenant], [the landowner] could only re-enter the property upon sixty days prior notice of default for a non-monetary lease provision. In Holcomb , the lease provision addressed the issue of liability and a third party was injured. 358 N.C. at 508-09 , 597 S.E.2d at 715 . The lease provision before us is too broad and indefinite to create liability for negligence for [the landowner’s] failure to exercise control over the premises. This lease governs the business relationship between [the landowner] and [the tenant], not [the landowner] and [the gasoline supplier]. Under the lease, [the tenant] possessed the right to “[u]se the premises for purposes in keeping with the proper zoning.” [The zoning official’s] affidavit showed the convenience store was operating in compliance with applicable zoning regulations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[the landowner] owed them a duty of care because it retained control over the property through the lease agreement with [the tenant]. Paragraph 3 of the lease states [the tenant] will, “b. Not use the premises for any unlawful or immoral purposes or occupy them in such a way as to constitute a nuisance . . . .” Plaintiffs contend this lease provision requires [the landowner] to prevent or stop any nuisance and “to take precautions to protect plaintiffs from harm.””
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.