Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 N.C. App. 31 - Mas Corp. v. Thompson

62 N.C. App. 31 - Mas Corp. v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Concrete Service Corp. v. Investors Group, Inc. (1986), Concrete Service Corp. v. Investors Group, Inc. (1986)

6 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

1701983199020002010decided

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 Johnson v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance · Kelly v. International Harvester Company · North Carolina National Bank v. Burnette · McNair v. Boyette · Goodyear v. Goodyear

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

  1. “The purpose of summary judgment is to bring litigation to an early decision on the merits without the delay and expense of a trial when no material facts are at issue. [Citation.] After there has been a trial, this purpose cannot be served. Improper denial of a motion for summary judgment is not reversible error when the case has proceeded to trial and has been determined on the merits by the trier of the facts, either judge or jury. The denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order and is not appealable. An aggrieved party may, however, petition for review by way of certiorari. [Citation.] To grant a review of the denial of the summary judgment motion after a final judgment on the merits, however, would mean that a party who prevailed at trial after a complete presentation of evidence by both sides with cross-examination could be deprived of a favorable verdict. This would allow a verdict reached after the presentation of all the evidence to be overcome by a limited forecast of the evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Unless otherwise agreed a seller who is a merchant regularly dealing in goods of the kind warrants that the goods shall be delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or the like but a buyer who furnishes specifications to the seller must hold the seller harmless against any such claim which arises out of compliance with the specifications.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[s]ubsequent conduct of the parties, after executing a contract, is admissible to show intent.”
    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.