Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 264 N.C. 33 - Bourne v. LAY & COMPANY

Bourne v. LAY & COMPANY’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Godley v. County of Pitt (1982), State Highway Commission v. Thornton (1967)

32 state decisions

180196519701980199020002010decided

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 State v. Waddell · Patterson v. . Bryant · Hayes v. Ricard · Eller v. Arnold · State Trust Co. v. Braznell

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

  1. “Our decisions applying the Connor Act establish these legal results: (1) The registration of a deed conveying an interest in land is essential to its validity as against a purchaser for a valuable consideration from the grantor. (2) A lease for more than three years must, to be enforceable, be in writing, and to protect it against creditors or subsequent purchasers for value, the lease must be recorded. (3) As between two purchasers for value of the same interest in land, the one whose deed is first registered acquires title. (4) Actual knowledge, however full and formal, of a grantee in a registered deed of a prior unregistered deed or lease will not defeat his title as a purchaser for value in the absence of fraud or matters creating estoppel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is essential to an equitable estoppel that the person asserting the estoppel shall have done or omitted some act or changed his position in reliance upon the representations or conduct of the person sought to be estopped.” (Emphasis added.)”
    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.