Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 N.C. App. 81 - Stout v. Smith

4 N.C. App. 81 - Stout v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
March 2009
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2009

12 state decisions

6019691970198019902000decided

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 Thormer v. LEXINGTON MAIL ORDER COMPANY · Lindsey v. . Speight

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

  1. “There is a difference between the measure of damages in a claim on express contract, one on implied contract, and one on quantum meruit. ‘A promise to pay for services is implied when they are rendered and received in such circumstances as authorize the party performing to entertain a reasonable expectation of payment for them by the party benefited. However, the law will not imply a promise to pay the value of services rendered and accepted, where there is proof of a special agreement to pay therefor a particular amount or in a particular manner . . .’ ‘If there is no special agreement as to the amount of compensation and the services are not intended to be gratuitous, the law implies a promise by the employer to pay what services reasonably are worth, which is determined largely by the nature of the work and the customary rate of pay for such work in the community and at the time the work was performed.’ ‘The measure of recovery for services furnished or goods received under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, as distinguished from the doctrine of contracts implied in fact is the value of the actual benefit realized and retained.’”
    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.