Potter v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2005 · most notably Concerned Citizens of Brunswick County Taxpayers Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. Rhodes (1991), 71 N.C. App. 35 - Biggers v. Evangelist (1984)
3 federal appellate · 20 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 Whichard v. . Lipe · Speight v. . Anderson · Spruill v. Nixon · Barwick v. Rouse · Bradley v. Bradley
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a separation of the title [to an estate]; (2) before the separation takes place, the use which gives rise to the easement shall have been so long continued and obvious or manifest to show that it was meant to be permanent; and (3) the easement shall be necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted or retained.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is settled law in this jurisdiction that where an owner of a tract of land conveys a portion thereof, the grantee takes the portion conveyed with the benefits or burdens of all those apparent and visible easements which appear at the time of the conveyance to belong to it, as between it and the property which the grantor retains. Bradley v. Bradley, 245 N.C. 483 , 96 S.E. 2d 417 ; Barwick v. Rouse, 245 N.C. 391 , 95 S.E. 2d 869 ; Spruill v. Nixon, 238 N.C. 523 , 78 S.E. 2d 323 ; Carver v. Leatherwood, 230 N.C. 96 , 52 S.E. 2d 1 ; Packard v. Smart, 224 N.C. 480 , 31 S.E. 2d 517 ; Carmon v. Dick, 170 N.C. 305 , 87 S.E. 224 . Stated another way: ‘. . . (W)here, during the unity of title, an apparently permanent and obvious servitude is imposed on one part of an estate in favor of another part, which servitude, at the time of the severance, is in use and is reasonably necessary to the fair enjoyment of the other part of the estate, then upon a severance of the ownership, a grant of the right to continue such use arises by implication of law. . . . The underlying basis of the rule is that unless the contrary is provided, all privileges and appurtenances as are obviously incident and necessary to the fair enjoyment of the property granted substantially in the condition in which it is enjoyed by the grantor are included in the grant.’ Barwick v. Rouse, supra, quoting from 17 Am. Jur., 945 , Easements Implied, section 33.” Potter v. Potter, 251 N.C. 760 , 112 S.E. 2d 569 (1960).”
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.