Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 276 N.C. 263 - Whitley v. Redden

Whitley v. Redden’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably State v. Fritsch (2000), Hanahan v. Simpson (1997)

26 state decisions

120197019801990200020102020decided

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 Peek v. Shook · In Re Hinton · Bunn v. . Todd · Goins v. McLoud · Chesson v. Pilot Life Insurance Company

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

  1. ““We conclude that North Carolina is one of those states which has a ‘Dead Man’s’ statute and allows an interested witness, where there is an issue of mental capacity, to relate personal transactions and communications between the witness and a decedent or lunatic as a basis for his opinion as to the mental capacity of the decedent or lunatic; however, such evidence will be rejected when it is offered for the purpose of proving and does tend to prove vital and material facts which will fix liability against the representative of a deceased person, or committee of a lunatic, or anyone deriving his title or interest through them. (Emphasis the Court’s.) “The rule set forth in the case of In re Hinton, 180 N.C. 206 , 104 S.E. 341 , that evidence is admissible over a general objection if it is competent for any purpose, is not applicable to the testimony here challenged. The challenged testimony was so directed and weighted towards proving facts essential to establishing plaintiff’s claim, rather than the basis of witnesses’ opinions as to sanity, that it became impossible for the trial court to effectively remove the prejudice to defendant by a limiting instruction. Therefore, a limiting instruction by the court could not make the evidence admissible.” (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.