Howard v. Boyce’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

66 state decisions

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

1. ““The primary question for the court below was whether or not the attorney of record had authority from appellants to compromise and settle the matters in controversy and approve a judgment in retraxit disclaiming on their behalf any right, title or interest in the land in question. There are no findings of fact determining this question. The judgment does not purport to determine this question. The cause must be remanded for this determination and for decision on all other related questions raised. Columbus County v. Thompson, 249 N.C. 607 , 107 S.E. 2d 302 . “On the question of laches the record before us shows nothing more than considerable lapse of time and is insufficient to support the finding ‘that the movants have been guilty of laches and unreasonable delay.’ A further showing on this phase may be made when the motion is again heard.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Howard v. Boyce

2. “[T]he early rule followed both in England and in this country was that... an unauthorized appearance (by an attorney) conferred jurisdiction over the party thus represented and that his only remedy after judgment was an action or other proceeding against the attorney, unless the latter were insolvent. .... If the attorney has acted without authority, the defendant has his remedy against him; but the judgment is still regular, and the appearance entered by the attorney, without warrant, is a good appearance as to the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 145 N.C. App. 621 - Henderson v. Wachovia Bank of North Carolina, N.A.

3. “The primary question for the court below was whether or not the attorney of record had authority from appellants to compromise and settle the matters in controversy and approve a judgment in retraxit disclaiming on their behalf any right, title or interest in the land in question. There are no findings of fact determining this question. [Therefore], the cause must be remanded for this determination. . . . (Emphasis ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 69 N.C. App. 543 - Caudle v. Ray