68 N.C. App. 74 - Ward v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably 114 N.C. App. 632 - Dodd v. Steele (1994), 115 N.C. App. 343 - Sealey v. Grine (1994)
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 State v. Hart · B. BOGLE v. Duke Power Company · NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COM'N v. Coggins · Vaughan v. Broadfoot · Stone v. Paradise Park Homes, Inc.
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.
“[W]here the parties chose to reinstitute the suit and the reinstituted suit was still pending . . . the courts . . . [are] able to order payment of costs.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Costs.A plaintiff who dismisses an action or claim under section (a) of this rule shall be taxed with the costs of the action unless the action was brought in forma pauperis. If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant before the payment of the costs of the action previously dismissed, unless such previous action was brought in forma pauperis, the court, upon motion of the defendant, shall make an order for the payment of such costs by the plaintiff within 30 days and shall stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff has complied with the order. If the plaintiff does not comply with the order, the court shall dismiss the action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he filing of notice of dismissal, while it may terminate adversary proceedings in the case, does not terminate the court's authority to enter orders apportioning and taxing costs pursuant to Rule 41.”
2 later decisions 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.