Cutts v. Casey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

246 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 246 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A failure of one of the parties to carry his burden of proof on the issue of title does not, ipso facto, entitle the adverse party to an adjudication that title to the disputed land is in him. He is not relieved of the burden of showing title in himself. Moore v. Miller, 179 N.C. 396 , 102 S.E. 627 . ‘The plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, and upon failure of proof by him the jury may well find that he is not the owner of the land, although satisfied that the defendant has no title.’ Wicker v. Jones, 159 N.C. 103, 116 , 74 S.E. 801, 806 . This statement is, of course, equally applicable to a defendant who has set up a cross action in which he claims title to the land in dispute. . . . There are cases involving a disputed title to land in which neither party can carry the burden of proof.” Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390 , 180 S.E. 2d 297 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 37 N.C. App. 617 - Blake v. Norman · Lake Drive Corp. v. Portner

2. ““As a consequence of our constitutional and statutory provisions this Court has consistently held that the judge cannot direct a verdict upon any controverted issue in favor of the party having the burden of proof ‘even though the evidence is uncontradicted.’ (Citations.) Justice Rodman stated the rule succinctly in Chisholm v. Hall, 255 N.C. 374, 376-77 , 121 S.E. 2d 726 , 728: ‘When all the evidence offered suffices, if true, to establish the controverted fact, the court may give a peremptory instruction — that is, if the jury find the facts to be as all the evidence tends to show, it will answer the inquiry in an indicated manner. Defendant’s denial of an alleged fact raises an issue as to its existence even though he offers no evidence tending to contradict that offered by plaintiff. (Emphasis ours.) ‘A peremptory instruction does not deprive the jury of its right to reject the evidence because of lack of faith in its credibility. Such an instruction differs from a directed verdict as that term is used by us. A verdict may never be directed when the facts are in dispute. The judge may direct a verdict only when the isstce submitted presents a question of law based on admitted facts.’ (Italics ours; citations omitted.)””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Weeks Motor Co. v. Daniels · 11 N.C. App. 310 - Terrell v. H & N CHEVROLET COMPANY

3. “(1) By plaintiff; by Stipulation. — Subject to the provisions of Rule 23(c) and of any statute of this State, an action or any claim therein may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the plaintiff rests his case, or; (ii) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all the parties who have appeared in the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice. (2) By Order of Judge. — Except as provided in subsection (1) of this section, an action or any claim therein shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the judge and upon such terms and conditions as justice requires. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this subsection is without prejudice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moore v. Pate