Clarke v. Holman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This safety statute [G.S. 20-154] requires a motorist intending to turn from a direct line (1) to see that the movement can be made in safety, and (2) to give the required signal when the operation of any other vehicle may be affected. Tart v. Register, 257 N.C. 161 , 125 S.E. 2d 754 ; Farmers Oil Co. v. Miller, 264 N.C. 101 , 141 S.E. 2d 41 . The first requirement does not mean that a motorist may not make a left turn unless the circumstances are absolutely free from danger. It means that a motorist must exercise reasonable care under existing conditions to ascertain that such movement can be made with safety.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Douglas · Taylor v. Hudson

2. ““(a) the driver of any vehicle upon a highway before * * * turning from a direct line shall first see that such movement can be made in safety, and * * * whenever the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by such movement, shall give a signal as required in this section, plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle, of the intention to make such movement. * * * “[T]he violation of this section shall not constitute negligence per se.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sharpe v. Grindstaff · State v. Ivey

3. ““On motion to nonsuit, all the evidence which tends to support plaintiff’s claim must be taken as true and considered in its light most favorable to plaintiff, giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference which may legitimately be drawn therefrom. Homes, Inc. v. Bryson, 273 N.C. 84 , 159 S.E. 2d 329 ; Insurance Co. v. Storage Co., 267 N.C. 679 , 149 S.E. 2d 27 . Contradictions and discrepancies are resolved in plaintiff’s favor. Watt v. Crews, 261 N.C. 143 , 134 S.E. 2d 199 ; Nixon v. Nixon, 260 N.C. 251 , 132 S.E. 2d 590 ; Smith v. Corsat, 260 N.C. 92 , 131 S.E. 2d 894 ; Raper v. McCrory-McLellan Corp., 259 N.C. 199 , 130 S.E. 2d 281 . Defendant’s evidence which contradicts that of the plaintiff, or tends to show a different state of facts, is ignored. Bundy v. Powell, 229 N.C. 707 , 51 S.E. 2d 307 . Only that part of defendant’s evidence which is favorable to plaintiff can be considered. Wall v. Bain, 222 N.C. 375 , 23 S.E. 2d 330 .” See also Bowen v. Gardner, 275 N.C. 363 , 168 S.E. 2d 47 (1969).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 7 N.C. App. 314 - Stith v. Perdue