Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 N.C. App. 634 - Furr v. Carmichael

82 N.C. App. 634 - Furr v. Carmichael’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2014

10 state decisions

601986199020002010decided

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 Summey v. Cauthen · 49 N.C. App. 631 - Carr v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp. · 57 N.C. App. 437 - American Travel Corp. v. Central Carolina Bank & Trust Co. · 59 N.C. App. 633 - Koonce v. May · American Travel Corporation v. Central Carolina Bank and Trust Company

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

  1. “[Rule] 56 [of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure] contemplate [s] a single hearing on a motion for summary judgment involving the same case on the same legal issues. Rule 56(c) provides that judgment shall be rendered if pleadings and other supporting materials show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(f) permits the opposing party to move for additional time to obtain affidavits or complete discovery essential to justify his opposition. . . . Generally, motions for summary judgment should not be decided until all parties are prepared to present their contentions on all the issues raised and determinable under Rule 56.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]hat is a “reasonable time” in which delivery must be made is generally a mixed question of law and fact, and, therefore, for the jury, but when the facts are simple and admitted, and only one inference can be drawn, it is a question of law.”
    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.