55 N.C. App. 250 - Stephenson v. Stephenson’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 143 N.C. App. 162 - Embler v. Embler (2001), 66 N.C. App. 522 - Mayer v. Mayer (1984)
46 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 Veazey v. City of Durham · 7 N.C. App. 456 - Peeler v. Peeler · 6 N.C. App. 319 - Kearns v. Kearns
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he matter could have been heard on its merits and a final order entered by the District Court . . . months before the appeal reached this Court for disposition. There is an inescapable inference drawn . . . that the appeal... is pursued for the purpose of delay rather than to accelerate determination of the parties’ rights. The avoidance of deprivation due to delay is one of the purposes for the rule that interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““In consideration of fairness to the parties and as a matter of public policy, this Court now overrules Peeler v. Peeler, supra, and other prior decisions recognizing a right of immediate appeal from orders and awards pendente lite. We hold, therefore, that orders and awards pendente lite are interlocutory decrees which necessarily do not affect a substantial right from which lies an immediate appeal pursuant to G.S. 7A-27(d).””
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.