Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 N.C. App. 242 - Sink v. Sumrell

41 N.C. App. 242 - Sink v. Sumrell’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2017

20 state decisions

8019791980199020002010decided

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 Wall v. . Bain · Exum v. Boyles · Wade Ex Rel. Wade v. Jones Sausage Co. · Smith v. Rawlins · Hoke v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.

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

  1. “(1) the pedestrian, by his own negligence, placed himself in a position of helpless peril, (2) the defendant was aware of, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered, plaintiff’s perilous position and his incapacity to escape, (3) the defendant had the time and means to avoid injury to the plaintiff by the exercise of reasonable care after he discovered or should have discovered the situation, and (4) the defendant negligently failed to use the time and means available to avoid injuring the pedestrian.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he doctrine of last clear chance imposes liability upon a defendant who did not actually know of the plaintiff's situation if, but only if, the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to maintain a lookout and would have discovered his situation had such a lookout been maintained.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “owed [him] a duty to keep a reasonable and proper lookout in the direction of travel, [but] also, that if [D]efendant had fulfilled that duty, he would have discovered [P]laintiff's helpless peril in time to avoid injuring him by then exercising reasonable care.”
    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.