Summey v. Cauthen’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
190 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably Dickinson v. Pake (1974), Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co. (1984)
190 state decisions
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 Kelly v. International Harvester Company · Cutts v. Casey · Investment Properties of Asheville, Inc. v. Allen · Younts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Adler v. Lumber Mutual Fire 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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n passing upon such a motion [for directed verdict], the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. [Citation omitted.] That is, the evidence in favor of the non-movant must be deemed true, all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in his favor and he is entitled to the benefit of every inference reasonably to be drawn in his favor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"On a motion by a defendant for a directed verdict in a jury case, the court must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and may grant the motion only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiff."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The propriety of granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is determined by the same considerations as that of a motion for a directed verdict. . . .” The motion for judgment n.o.v. is that judgment be entered in accordance with the movant’s earlier motion for a directed verdict, nothwithstanding the contrary verdict actually returned by the jury. Rule 50(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. Chapter 1A.”
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.