Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 287 N.C. 448 - Stanback v. Stanback

Stanback v. Stanback’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

115 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Oestreicher v. American National Stores, Inc. (1976), Goldston v. American Motors Corp. (1990)

115 state decisions

43019751980199020002010decided

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 Schlagenhauf v. Holder · Beck v. United States · Kelsey-Hayes Co. v. Dunlop Co. · Crosby v. Crosby · Rickert v. Rickert

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

  1. “'review will serve the expeditious administration of justice or some other exigent purpose.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In an action or proceeding for the custody or support, or both, of a minor child, including a motion in the cause for the modification or revocation of an existing order for custody or support, or both, the court may in its discretion order payment of reasonable attorney’s fees to an interested party acting in good faith who has insufficient means to defray the expense of the suit. Before ordering payment of a fee in a support action, the court must find as a fact that the party ordered to furnish support has refused to provide support which is adequate under the circumstances existing at the time of the institution of the action or proceeding. . . .” [Emphasis added.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a custody order was a ‘final’ order within the meaning of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(b) even though it could be modified subsequently upon a proper showing of change of circumstances under G.S. 50-13.7. The same rationale applies to orders for child support. Like custody orders, child support orders are not ‘final’ orders only in the sense that they may be modified subsequently upon a motion in the cause and a showing of change of circumstances as provided in G.S. 50-13.7.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.