Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 N.C. App. 373 - Forsyth County v. Plemmons

2 N.C. App. 373 - Forsyth County v. Plemmons’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
3
states following
October 2002
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 2002

3 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

12019681970198019902000decided

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 Hawthorne v. Hawthorne · Carter v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NY · North Carolina State Highway Commission v. Myers · Turlington v. Lucas · Stockton v. Maney

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

  1. ““Under this contract the [fire] insurance company, in consideration of the premium paid to it, has assumed specified risks and has agreed to pay money to the parties insured upon the happening of certain events. Such a policy is a personal contract, appertaining to the parties to the contract and not to the thing which is subject to the risk insurance against. 29 Am.Jur., Insurance, § 183, p. 575. Proceeds payable thereunder when an insured loss occurs take the place of the building destroyed only in the sense of being a thing of like value, not necessarily of like ownership.” (Emphasis added).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It may be conceded that the plaintiff husband had an insurable interest in the property of which he and his wife were seized as tenants by the entirety. However, since the proprietary interest of the husband was an inseparable part of the single-entity title held in unity by him and his wife, his insurable interest ran to the whole of the property and covered the entire estate. [Citations omitted.] We conclude that the insurance policy as written and the loss benefits created thereby inured to the benefit of the entire estate as owned by both husband and wife. (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Unless otherwise provided by their joint and voluntary agreement and in the absence of an absolute divorce, we are of (the) opinion and so decide that such involuntary transfer of title does not destroy or dissolve the estate by the entirety in the respect of the appropriated portion of the Myers’ land, and that the compensation paid by the Commission therefor has the status of real property owned by husband and wife as tenants by the entirety.””
    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.