51 N.C. App. 19 - Hawks v. Brindle’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2014
20 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 Ragsdale v. Kennedy · Johnson v. Stevenson · Kutz v. McCune · Jefferson Standard Life Insurance v. Guilford County · Insurance Co. v. . Guilford County
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rule in North Carolina appears to be that a covenantee may not recover for breach of the covenant against encumbrances where the encumbrance he alleges is a public highway or railroad right of way and either (1) the covenantee purchased the property with actual knowledge that it was subject to the right-of-way or (2) the property was “obviously and notoriously subjected at the time to some right of easement or servitude . . . [Citation omitted.] In short, the issue is whether the covenantee knew or should have known that the land he bought was subject to a public right-of-way. Once this issue of fact is determined in the affirmative, the covenantee is “conclusively presumed to have purchased with reference to” the right-of-way. [Citation omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]t is generally held that a deed conveying property on which there existed a right of way in the public, conveys the ultimate property in the soil, and therefore there is no breach of the covenant of seisin ....”
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.