186 N.C. App. 328 - Blinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 2025
19 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 General Motors Corp. v. Tracy · Stanley v. Department of Conservation & Development · 145 N.C. App. 391 - Fuller v. Easley · Nicholson v. State Education Assistance Authority · Mitchell v. NORTH CAROLINA INDUS. DEVELOP. FIN. AU.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As the party invoking jurisdiction, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the elements of standing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“plaintiffs challenge incentives — provided by the General Assembly and defendants City of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County — that benefitted defendant Dell, Inc. when it constructed a computer manufacturing facility in Forsyth County. Whether these incentives are lawful under the North Carolina Constitution was settled by Maready and this Court’s subsequent decision in Peacock v. Shinn, 139 N.C. App. 487 , 533 S.E.2d 842 , appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 267 , 546 S.E.2d 110 (2000). We are not free to revisit the reasoning or hold ings of those opinions. To the extent plaintiffs question the wisdom of the incentives and whether they will in fact provide the public benefit promised, they have sought relief in the wrong forum. Once the Supreme Court held in Maready that economic incentives to recruit business to North Carolina involve a proper public purpose, it became the role of the General Assembly and the Executive Branch — and not the courts — to determine whether such incentives are sound public policy. We are bound by Maready and Peacock and, therefore, affirm the trial court’s decision ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Plaintiffs’ claims that the Computer Legislation violates the Uniformity of Taxation Clauses and the Federal Dormant Commerce Clause do not relate to any injury plaintiffs themselves have sustained. Rather, plaintiffs’ claims under these provisions pertain only to a theoretical injury that might be suffered by other businesses that may attempt to compete with Dell. In other words, plaintiffs lack any “ ‘personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ ” with respect to their challenges under these provisions. [Goldston, 361 N.C. at 30 , 637 S.E.2d at 879 ] (quoting Stanley, 284 N.C. at 28 , 199 S.E.2d at 650 ). Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they belong to a class that is prejudiced by the operation of the Computer Legislation. Accordingly, we hold the trial court properly concluded that plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims under both the Uniformity of Taxation Clauses and the Dormant Commerce Clause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.