96 N.C. App. 112 - Rice v. Randolph’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably 107 N.C. App. 745 - Lombroia v. Peek (1992), 106 N.C. App. 75 - City of Albemarle v. Security Bank & Trust Co. (1992)
3 federal appellate · 29 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 White v. Pate · Cleveland Realty Company v. Hobbs · Van Ettinger v. Pappin · 13 N.C. App. 719 - Wall v. Sneed · 40 N.C. App. 188 - Ludwig v. Hart
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] judgment which is determinative of a claim arising in an action in which necessary parties have not been joined is null and void.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“a dispute as to the extinguishment of a subdivision easement by abandonment or adverse possession cannot be resolved without the joinder of ... the record owners of lots in the subdivision, who have user rights in the easement. Those owners of interests in the easement have a material interest in the subject matter of the controversy, and their interest will be directly affected by the court's decision.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[p]laintiffs brought suit to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' user rights in an easement ... created by deeds referencing a recorded plat of a subdivision in which the parties' land is located. Defendants raised abandonment of the easement as a defense and also counterclaimed for a declaration of their rights to the land described in their deed, which purported to convey fee ownership to a tract of land consisting of a portion of lot 1 in the subdivision as well as a portion of the easement. Defendants claimed ownership of that portion of the easement by virtue of seven years' adverse possession under color of title and, alternatively, by twenty years' adverse possession. A jury answered the questions of abandonment and adverse possession in favor of defendants, and the trial court entered judgment decreeing defendants owners of the property described in their deed free and clear of any claims of plaintiffs to the right of way shown on the subdivision plat and further enjoining plaintiffs from interfering with or going upon defendants' property.”
2 later decisions 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.