Branks v. Kern’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2006 · most notably Nelson v. Freeland (1998), 116 N.C. App. 448 - Bryant v. Adams (1994)
34 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 Caldwell v. Deese · Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem · Wrenn v. Hillcrest Convalescent Home, Inc. · Garner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation · Mazzacco v. Purcell
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Regarding G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56, our Supreme Court has stated: The party moving for summary judgment must establish the lack of any triable issue by showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375 , 218 S.E.2d 379 (1975); Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 513 , 186 S.E.2d 897 (1972). As this Court remarked in Koontz , “An issue is material if the facts alleged would constitute a legal defense, or would affect the result of the action, or if its resolution would prevent the party against whom it is resolved from prevailing in the action.” Koontz, 280 N.C. at 518 , 186 S.E.2d at 901 . All inferences are to be drawn against the moving party and in favor of the opposing party. Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375 , 218 S.E.2d 379 ; Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 513 , 186 S.E.2d 897 .”
3 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.