Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 N.C. App. 746 - Whitehurst v. Corey

88 N.C. App. 746 - Whitehurst v. Corey’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2018

20 state decisions

801988199020002010decided

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 Boykin v. Alabama · Green Ex Rel. Downs v. Duke Power Co. · 88 N.C. App. 1 - J & B Slurry Seal Co. v. Mid-South Aviation, Inc. · Schoolfield v. Collins · Noblett v. General Electric Credit Corp.

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

  1. ““[I]t is rather common for a promissory note to be intended as only a partial integration of the agreement in pursuance of which it was given, and parol evidence as between the original parties may well be admissible so far as it is not inconsistent with the express terms of the note.” Borden, Inc. v. Brower, 284 N.C. 54, 61 , 199 S.E.2d 414, 419-20 (1973). Construing defendants’ verified pleadings in their favor as non-movant reveals a material fact dispute concerning the alleged existence and effect of a fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendants. These alleged facts are clearly “material” since plaintiff’s performance of the alleged fiduciary duties was allegedly part of the consideration for defendants’ execution of the promissory note. We also reject plaintiff’s argument that defendants have alleged no facts showing detrimental reliance in support of their apparent fraud claim. Defendants’ purchase of plaintiff’s stock may well evidence their detrimental reliance on plaintiff’s alleged representations concerning his intended fiduciary obligations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Rule 56(e) does not deny that a properly verified pleading which meets all the requirements for affidavits may effectively 'set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “failure to object to form or sufficiency of pleadings and affidavits waives objection on summary judgment”
    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.