5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 64 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. Anchor | green | “to support a reasonable inference of substantial causation from circumstantial evidence, there must be evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.” | 23 |
| 2 | Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. | green | “evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.” | 15 |
| 3 | Johnson v. Holiday Inn of America, Inc. | green | “in tort actions, north carolina courts adhere to the rule of lex loci and apply the substantive laws of the state in which the injuries were sustained.” | 12 |
| 4 | Boudreau v. Baughman | green | “this court has consistently adhered to the lex loci rule in tort actions.” | 9 |
| 5 | Wilder v. Amatex Corp. | green | “actually exposed to the alleged offending products.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.