Andersen v. Baccus’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 state decisions

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

1. “Our interpretation of [N.C. Gen.Stat. §] 20-279.21 is further supported by the fact that the legislature has undertaken to amend the uninsured motorist statute subsequent to this Court's first interpreting it as requiring physical contact between the insured and the hit-and-run driver. To date, it has not chosen to amend the statute to indicate that [such] physical contact is not required. When the legislature acts, it is always presumed that it acts with full knowledge of prior and existing law; and where it chooses not to amend a statutory provision that has been interpreted in a specific, consistent way by our courts, we may assume that it is satisfied with that interpretation. Thus, in consideration of the time-tested prior rulings of this Court, we are constrained to conclude that any shift away from the "physical contact" requirement must derive not from this Court, but from legislative action, or action by our Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter for interpreting the statutes of this state.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 127 N.C. App. 286 - State v. Fly · 252 N.C. App. 427 - Kaska v. Progressive Universal Ins. Co.

2. “[N]othing suggests that [defendant] knew of plaintiffs existence. The forecast of evidence is undisputed that at the moment of impact [defendant] did not know who was in the car which her vehicle struck and had never met [plaintiffs wife]. Both Gardner and Sorrells teach that the family relationship between plaintiff and the injured party for whom plaintiff is concerned is insufficient, standing alone, to establish the element of foreseeability. In this case as in Sorrells the possibility that the decedent might have a parent or spouse who might live close enough to be brought to the scene of the accident and might be susceptible to suffering a severe emotional or mental disorder as the result of [defendant’s] alleged negligent act is entirely too speculative to be reasonably foreseeable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 131 N.C. App. 525 - Fields v. Dery

3. “to the principle of stare decisis ... [and] decline to change existing judicial interpretation of the uninsured motorist statute, especially in light of the legislature's recent revision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 191 N.C. App. 106 - Moore v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance