Harris v. Latta’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Mayor of Oakland v. Mayor of Mountain Lake Park (2006), 182 N.C. App. 229 - Parker v. Glosson (2007)
3 federal appellate · 20 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 Jamestown Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. · Weyerhaeuser Company v. Carolina Power & Light Co. · Guilford v. . Georgia Co. · Pettit v. Wood-Owen Trailer Co. · Beasely v. . Downey
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n construing contracts ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning unless it is apparent that the words were used in a special sense. 'The terms of an unambiguous contract are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default, after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included. The last day of the period so computed is to be included unless: (1) It is a Sunday or a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day, which is neither a Sunday or a holiday; or, (2) the act to be done is the filing of some paper in court and the office of the clerk of said court on said last day of the period is not open, or is closed for a part of a day, in which event, the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Sunday, Saturday, a legal holiday, or a day on which the said office is not open the entire day during ordinary business hours. When the period of time allowed is more than seven days, intermediate Sundays and holidays shall be considered as other days; but if the period of time allowed is seven days or less, intermediate Sundays and holidays shall not be counted in computing the period of time.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We conclude that use of this phrase does not alter the general rule for the computation of time. We stress again that the phrase ‘at least’ is not specially defined in the option contract and therefore must be given its ordinary meaning. When this is done, it is clear that the phrase ‘at least’ does not specify which method of computation is to be used; rather, it merely serves to emphasize that a minimum of sixty days’ notice must be given, to be computed in the manner in which time is normally reckoned. “It is important to note that the general rule for computation of time in this jurisdiction comports with the manner in which persons of ordinary understanding would determine the time within which an act is to be done.””
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.