Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 231 N.C. 47 - Barrier v. Troutman

Barrier v. Troutman’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
3
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co. (1953), Kent v. Humphries (1981)

44 state decisions

90194919501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 United States v. Causby · Baltimore v. Fifth Baptist Church · Delta Air Corporation v. Kersey · Turner v. . Reidsville · Clinton v. . Ross

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

  1. “beyond the possibility of repair or possible compensation in damages, but that the injury is one to which the complainant should not be required to submit or the other party permitted to inflict, and is of such continuous and frequent recurrence that no reasonable redress can be had in a court of law.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In the case at bar the verdict of the jury established the fact that the airport of the defendants was so located and used that planes operating to and from it constituted a nuisance ‘as alleged in the complaint.’ This finding was without exception by the defendants. The complaint alleged a private nuisance as distinguished from a public nuisance, that is, that the described injuries, discomforts, and annoyances resulted from violation of plaintiff’s private rights rather than those common to the public generally. . . . Hence, we think the plaintiff was entitled to the remedy by injunction, restraining the continued use and operation of the airport in such a way as to injure the plaintiff in the manner alleged in his complaint.””
    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.