Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 N.C. App. 498 - Midgette v. Pate

94 N.C. App. 498 - Midgette v. Pate’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
June 2012
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2012

23 state decisions

1601989199020002010decided

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 Sutton v. Duke · Smith v. Ford Motor Co. · In Re Pine Hill Cemeteries, Inc. · Lee v. Walker · 61 N.C. App. 612 - Heery v. Town of Highlands Zoning Board of Adjustment

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

  1. “The board of adjustment shall hear and decide appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance adopted pursuant to this Part. An appeal may be taken by any person aggrieved or by an officer, department, board, or bureau of the city.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Plaintiff has alleged the special damages required to assert standing under N.C.G.S. § 160A-388(b) as an aggrieved person. Thus, she could have contested the permits had she timely filed with the board of adjustment. Plaintiff’s complaints specifically concerning defendants’ special use, or building permits, may only be remedied by first appealing to the board of zoning adjustment. She failed to do so and therefore she cannot now attack these permits.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “mandamus will lie to compel the performance of a purely ministerial duty imposed by law, and that the party seeking the writ must have a clear legal right to demand it, and the party sought to be coerced must be under legal obligation to perform the duty. “[The function of the writ] is to compel the performance of a ministerial duty — not to establish a legal right, but to enforce one which has been established.””
    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.