Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 NCAPP 101 - Simmons v. Tuttle

Simmons v. Tuttle’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
May 2011
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2011

6 state decisions

201984199020002010decided

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 Moore v. Deal · 11 N.C. App. 128 - Kirby v. ASHEVILLE CONTRACTING COMPANY · 18 N.C. App. 671 - Green v. Eure · Carolina Freight Carriers Corporation v. Local Union 61 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

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

  1. “It is quite plain that the plaintiff, as distinguished from his new counsel, was without fault in not reporting to the court or attending the call of the clean-up calendar, and his case should not have been dismissed because of it. Though the court could have properly found that plaintiff's new counsel was negligent for failing to ascertain that the case was on the clean-up calendar and acted accordingly, this neglect was not imputable to plaintiff; because an attorney's neglect will not be imputed to a litigant that is himself free of fault. According to the record, the dismissal was entered because plaintiff's attorney failed to discharge an administrative duty; a duty, as is generally known to the profession, that is rarely, if ever, discharged by litigants whose cases are being handled by lawyers, and that, for aught that the record shows, plaintiff knew nothing about. Thus, though the court certainly had grounds for sanctioning plaintiff's new counsel, had it chosen to do so, it had no grounds for sanctioning plaintiff at all....”
    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.