Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 51 N.C. App. 646 - Roberts v. Heffner

51 N.C. App. 646 - Roberts v. Heffner’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
August 2007
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2007 · most notably 113 N.C. App. 19 - Liggett Group, Inc. v. Sunas (1993), 169 N.C. App. 674 - Carlisle v. Keith (2005)

26 state decisions

140198119902000decided

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 Veazey v. City of Durham · Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc. · Bailey v. Gooding · Tridyn Industries, Inc. v. American Mutual Insurance · Bryan Builders Supply v. Midyette

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

  1. “[A] “general contractor” is defined as one who for a fixed price, commission, fee or wage, undertakes to . . . construct any building . . . where the cost for the undertaking is $30,000 or more. . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In our opinion, the possibility of being forced to undergo two full trials on the merits and to incur the expense of litigating twice makes it clear that the judgment in question works an injury to defendants if not corrected before an appeal from a final judgment. The burden on defendants in this case of being forced to undergo two full trials is much greater than that suffered by the appellant in Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200 , 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978) (the necessity of rehearing its summary judgment motion), or by the appellant in Bailey v. Gooding, supra (the necessity of undergoing a full trial on the merits instead of a trial solely on the issue of damages) or by the appellant in Industries, Inc. v. Insurance Co., supra (the necessity of undergoing a trial on the issue of damages). We conclude that the judgment in question affects a substantial right of the defendants. . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “While several factors must be taken into consideration in determining whether a party is a general contractor within the meaning of the contractors’ licensing statutes, the principal characteristic distinguishing a general contractor from a subcontractor or other party contracting with the owner, . . . is the degree of control to be exercised by the contractor over the construction of the entire project. Ordinarily the degree of control a contractor has over the construction of a particular project is to be determined from the terms of the contract.”
    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.