82 N.C. App. 481 - Howell v. Waters’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2016
2 district · 20 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 Marriott Financial Services, Inc. v. Capitol Funds, Inc. · 31 N.C. App. 463 - Huss v. Huss · Cofield v. Griffin · Husketh v. Convenient Systems, Inc. · Hinson v. Jefferson
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) the risk is allocated to him by agreement of the parties, or (b) he is aware, at the time the contract is made that he has only limited knowledge with respect to the facts to which the mistake relates but treats his limited knowledge as sufficient, or (c) the risk is allocated to him by the court on the ground that it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t must be as to a fact which enters into and forms the basis of the contract, or in other words it must be of the essence of the agreement, the sine qua non, or, as is sometimes said, the efficient cause of the agreement, and must be such that it animates and controls the conduct of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Did [the] plaintiff exercise due diligence in discovering the alleged mistake such that his action is not barred by the three year statute of limitations in N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-52(9)?; (2) Has [the] plaintiff presented clear, cogent and convincing evidence establishing that he was mistaken regarding the boundaries of the property to be conveyed?; (3) If [the] plaintiff was mistaken, did [the] defendant or [the] defendant’s agent have reason to know of [the] plaintiff’s mistake or cause [the] plaintiff’s mistake?; (4) Was the mistake material?; and (5) Did [the] plaintiff assume the risk of a mistake by: (a) unreasonably relying on [the defendant’s] representations or (b) treating his limited knowledge of the boundaries of the property to be conveyed as sufficient?”
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.