Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 249 N.C. 447 - Sledge v. Miller

Sledge v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2018

19 state decisions

1001959196019701980199020002010decided

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 Powell v. Mills · WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. Miller · Brown v. E. H. Clement Co. · Kelly v. Kelly · Solon Lodge No. 9 Knights of Pythias Co. v. Ionic Lodge Free Ancient & Accepted Masons No. 72 Co.

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.

  1. “The deed from State Board of Education to Hammer Lumber Company and the deed from Hammer Lumber Company to Beaufort County Lumber Company sufficed to show, prima facie, title to the lands there described in the Beaufort County Lumber Company, but plaintiff failed to establish that he acquired title to the properties owned by Beaufort County Lumber Company. For that purpose he offered a deed from Grady and others, receivers of Beaufort County Lumber Company. The record does not show what recitals, if any, appear in this deed. It may be presumed, however, that the persons named as receivers in the deed claimed judicial authority to convey, and that the deed contained recitals to that effect, but the recitals, if they appear in the deed, were not, as against these defendants, sufficient to establish that fact. The burden rested on plaintiff to show that the persons named as receivers were in fact receivers and had authority to convey. This should have been established by offering the judgment roll in the action appointing receivers. [Citations omitted.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he finding of the jury that defendants were the owners of the land from which the timber was cut negatived plaintiff's claim of trespass and defeated his claim for 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.