Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 N.C. 1 - State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
2
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

98 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 72 N.C. App. 372 - Wade v. Wade (1985), North Carolina State Highway Commission v. Helderman (1974)

98 state decisions

34019721980199020002010decided

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 Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Commission · City of Charlotte v. McNeely · State v. McDonald · Carver v. Lykes · 241 Mo. App. 759 - Empire District Electric Co. v. Johnston

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

  1. “In this State the rule is well settled “that the price paid at voluntary sales of land, similar in nature, location, and con dition to the condemnee’s land, is admissible as independent evidence of the value of the land taken if the prior sale was not too remote in time. Whether two properties are sufficiently similar to admit evidence of the purchase price of one as a guide to the value of the other is a question to be determined by the trial judge in the exercise of a sound discretion guided by law.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Section (a) makes a witness fee for any witness, except those specifically exempted therein, dependent upon his having been subpoenaed to testify in the case, and it fixes his fee at $5.00 per day. As to expert witnesses, Section (d) modifies Section (a) by permitting the court, in its discretion, to increase their compensation and allowances. The modification relates only to the amount of an expert witness’s fee; it does not abrogate the requirement that all witnesses must be subpoenaed before they are entitled to compensation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In condemnation proceedings the determinative question is: In its condition on the day of the taking, what was the value of the land for the highest and best use to which it would be put by owners possessed of prudence, wisdom, and adequate means? “The owner’s actual plans or hopes for the future are completely irrelevant.” Such aspirations being “regarded as too remote and speculative to merit consideration.””
    2 later decisions 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.