83 N.C. App. 116 - Williams v. Sapp’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2010
10 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. Smith · Potts v. Burnette · State v. Ledford · Nolan v. Boulware · 36 N.C. App. 551 - Auman v. Easter
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.
“[t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Q. All right. I am trying to deal with the subject of discretion, Dr. Baarda. What discretion is available to the Board under this Section [of the certificate] that you are reading from? . . . . . A. That this cooperative gives the discretion to the Board of Directors to redeem. Q. I'd like to ask whether you have an opinion as to whether there is an additional type of discretion permissible to the Board of Directors? A. (Reading over paragraph.) Yes, there is an additional discretion. Q. What is that discretion? A. [The] discretion ... to revolve [the certificates] out of order ... under some extraordinary circumstances ... spelled out in the by-laws [such as] to compromise or settle the dispute between the owner thereof and the association, and then for other purposes such as settling an estate or when an owner moves from the territory. . . . . . Q. Based upon your experience, and your review of materials which you have previously testified to, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to whether the Board of Directors of Raeford abused its discretion in failing to redeem HAJMM's Class B revolving fund certificate? A. [M]y opinion is that the Board of Directors did abuse its discretion in failing to redeem this equity. Q. Do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to when the abuse of discretion occurred? A. In my opinion the abuse occurred when demand was made on the cooperative to pay it back and the cooperative refused to do so. Q. Do you have an opinion”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Plaintiff's expert's] opinion merely tells the jury the result that they should reach and, therefore, is not helpful to their determination of a fact in issue, as required by G.S. 8C-1, Rules 701 and 702. See, Commentary, G.S. 8C-1, Rule 704. The attorney's testimony regarding his opinion amounts to instructions to the jury on easements by implication. This testimony does not invade the province of the jury, which plaintiff argues is permissible, but invades the province of the court and should not have been admitted. See, Board of Transportation v. Bryant, 59 N.C.App. 256 , 296 S.E.2d 814 (1982). This error was clearly prejudicial to defendants, because the jury was required to answer the same question asked of plaintiff's expert witness. We hold, therefore, that defendants are entitled to a new trial on the issue of easement by implication.”
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.