Mauney v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably 165 N.C. App. 1 - Stetser v. Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. (2004), 97 N.C. App. 511 - Mosley & Mosley Builders, Inc. v. Landin Ltd. (1990)
70 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 Henry v. Deen · Roberts v. William N. & Kate B. Reynolds Mem. Park · Vernon v. Crist · Mangum v. Surles · Burcl v. North Carolina Baptist Hospital, Inc.
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, he may so amend it at any time within 30 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he burden is upon the opposing party to establish that that party would be prejudiced by the amendment”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The date of the filing of the motion, rather than the date the court rules on it, is the crucial date in measuring the period of limitations. The timely filing of the motion to amend, if later allowed, is sufficient to start the action within the period of limitations. Plaintiff’s amendment was therefore not barred by the statute of limitations, and whether it would “relate back” to the filing of the original complaint was immaterial.”
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.