Harris v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Briley v. Farabow (1998), Cavenaugh v. Cavenaugh (1986)
52 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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1408 · 42 U.S.C. § 659 (§ 459 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on McCarty v. McCarty · Bailey v. Gooding · Sink v. Easter · Wiggins v. Bunch · Munchak Corp. v. Caldwell
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he scope of review by an appellate court is usually limited to a consideration of the assignments of error in the record on appeal and ... if the appealing party has no right to appeal the appellate court should dismiss the appeal ex mero motu. When a party fails to raise an appealable issue, the appellate court will generally not raise it for that party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The [trial c]ourt can, in the exercise of its powers in equity, order specific performance of only such amount [of alimony] as it finds to be proper. This, however, does not alter [the dependent spouse’s] rights at law under the agreement. “We hold that the Court in the exercise of its powers in equity could modify the prior judgment ordering specific performance of the separation agreement of the parties but that this modification did not affect the parties’ rights at law under the agreement.” Harris v. Harris, 307 N.C. 684, 685-86 , 300 S.E.2d 369, 371 (1983).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. Jones“A motion under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the court's ruling will not be disturbed without a showing that the court abused its discretion.”
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.