Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 N.C. App. 165 - Durham v. McLamb

59 N.C. App. 165 - Durham v. McLamb’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Lemmerman v. A. T. Williams Oil Co. (1986), Youngblood v. N. State Ford Truck Sales (1988)

36 state decisions

1401982199020002010decided

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 Lucas v. Li'l General Stores · 2 N.C. App. 43 - Patterson v. LM PARKER & COMPANY · 46 N.C. App. 817 - Lloyd v. Jenkins Context Co. · Chadwick v. North Carolina Department of Conservation & Development · 8 N.C. App. 309 - Cousins v. Hood

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

  1. “[T]he term “regularly employed” connotes employment of the same number of persons throughout the period with some constancy. It would not seem that the purpose of the Act would be accomplished by making it applicable to an employer who may have had, in the total number of persons entering and leaving his service during the period, more than the minimum number required by the Act.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “three or more individuals must affirmatively appear in the record. Durham v. McLamb, 59 N.C. App. 165, 170 , 296 S.E.2d 3, 6 (1982); Chadwick v. Department of Conservation and Development, 219 N.C. 766, 767 , 14 S.E.2d 842, 843 (1941).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]f the defendant had [three] or more 'regularly employed' employees, the fact that he fell below the minimum requirement on the actual date of injury would not preclude coverage.”
    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.