Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 N.C. App. 372 - Hunter v. Spaulding

97 N.C. App. 372 - Hunter v. Spaulding’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably 176 N.C. App. 33 - Bob Timberlake Collection, Inc. v. Edwards (2006), 155 N.C. App. 161 - Blankenship v. Town and Country Ford, Inc. (2002)

28 state decisions

140199020002010decided

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 Hickman v. Taylor · Terry v. Terry · Nishimatsu Construction Co. v. Houston National Bank · Willis v. Duke Power Co. · 37 N.C. App. 121 - American Imports, Inc. v. G. E. Employees Western Region Federal Credit Union

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

  1. “[a] default judgment admits only the allegations contained within the complaint, and a defendant may still show that the complaint is insufficient to warrant [the] plaintiff's recovery.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the complaint avers the necessary elements of fraud with sufficient particularity to have allowed default judgment to be entered for the [plaintiffs.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “defaulting him on the [plaintiffs'] fraud claim was improper in that the [plaintiffs'] complaint for fraud was deficient.”
    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.