48 N.C. App. 497 - Peebles v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably 160 N.C. App. 484 - Granville Medical Center v. Tipton (2003), 62 N.C. App. 182 - Kennedy v. Starr (1983)
39 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 Bell v. Martin · 10 N.C. App. 109 - Whaley v. Rhodes · Crotts v. Camel Pawn Shop, Inc. · 32 N.C. App. 288 - Roland v. W & L Motor Lines, Inc. · 11 N.C. App. 504 - North American Acceptance Corp. v. Samuels
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]nasmuch as the law generally disfavors default judgments, any doubt should be resolved in favor of setting aside an entry of default so that the case may be decided on its merits.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hat constitutes 'good cause' depends on the circumstances in a particular case, and within the limits of discretion, an inadvertence which is not strictly excusable may constitute good cause, particularly 'where the plaintiff can suffer no harm from the short delay involved in the default and grave injustice may be done to the defendant.' " Id. at 504 , 269 S.E.2d at 698 (quoting Whaley v. Rhodes , 10 N.C. App. 109 , 112, 177 S.E.2d 735 , 737 (1970) ). "This standard is less stringent than the showing of 'mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect' necessary to set aside a default judgment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60(b).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[D]efendant's failure timely to file his answer was due to an inadvertence on the part of defendant's insurer, and not due to any fault of his own. It further appears that defense counsel promptly filed an answer upon discovering that a mistake had been made. Although such inadvertence may not be excusable, we believe that the circumstances of this case support a showing of sufficient cause to set aside entry of default. We find that the delay in answer did not prejudice plaintiff, and it appears that allowing default here would do an injustice to defendant.”
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.