104 N.C. App. 558 - State v. Joyce’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably State v. Snyder (1996), 123 N.C. App. 276 - State v. Weaver (1996)
48 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 Barker v. Wingo · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico · Moore v. Arizona
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All victims in the case at bar were moved from one room to another room where they were confined. The removals were not an integral part of the crime nor necessary to facilitate the robberies, since the rooms where the victims were ordered to go did not contain safes, cash registers or lock boxes which held property to be taken.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[s]ince none of the property was kept in the dressing room, it was not necessary to move the victims there in order to commit the robbery. Removal of the victims to the dressing room thus was not an inherent and integral part of the robbery.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[The victim’s] removal to the back of the store was an inherent and integral part of the attempted armed robbery. To accomplish defendant’s objective of obtaining drugs it was necessary that [a store employee] go to the back of the store to the prescription counter and open the safe. Defendant was indicted for the attempted armed robbery of [the two store employees], [The victim’s] removal was a mere technical asportation and insufficient to support conviction for a separate kidnapping offense.”
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.