Murdock v. Ratliff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. “Mr. Billings [counsel for Ratliff]: Let me ask that I be allowed to have marked —I don’t know whether I should mark it or not, but I would like to introduce in evidence on behalf of Uzoh the Murdock complaint. I don’t know the procedure for doing that. Mr. MILLER [counsel for Moss and Cardwell]: The defendant Moss and Cardwell will object. COURT: Let me see it. I have the tender. I have the objection. Mr. MILLER: That is the only part that we are concerned with. COURT: I understand, unverified. Any objection? Mr. CRANFILL: No, sir. COURT: No objection. The Murdock complaint will be received into evidence with respect to Claude Tolson Murdock. The objection— Mr. MILLER: Let me think a minute. Just a moment, Your Honor. I still object. COURT: Still object to it? Mr. Miller: Yes, sir. COURT: Objection is sustained with respect to Moss and Cardwell. The complaint comes in then in terms of Murdock only. Mr. BILLINGS: Your Honor, my witness has just walked in. COURT: Fine. Mr. Miller: If Your Honor please, may I on the last offer of evidence, my objection to that, if I may qualify that objection. COURT: All right, you may. Mr. MILLER: Is to that portion of the complaint as it relates to the two defendants that I represent. That is the purpose of my objection. Other than that, I have no objection. COURT: All right. Then the ruling is that it is sustained with respect to that portion of the complaint. Mr. MILLER: Yes, sir. I will not itemize each paragraph but the record will indicat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Murdock v. Ratliff

2. “Regardless of whether Uzoh came to a full stop or almost stopped, it is clear that his conduct constituted negligence as a matter of law. Uzoh violated G.S. 20-141(h) which provides, in part: “No person shall operate a motor vehicle on the highway at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law; . . .” Violation of the standard of care required by G.S. 20-141(h) is negligence per se. [Citation omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Murdock v. Ratliff