Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 122 N.C. App. 369 - State v. Carr

122 N.C. App. 369 - State v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
2
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

67 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 142 N.C. App. 361 - State v. Frazier (2001), 145 N.C. App. 335 - State v. Carr (2001)

67 state decisions

520199620002010decided

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 State v. Patterson · State v. Davis · State v. Rose · State v. Ysut Mlo · State v. McLaurin

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

  1. “In determining whether to grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss, the trial court must consider all the evidence admitted in the light most favorable to the State and decide whether there is substantial evidence of each element of the offense charged and that the defendant committed it. “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. ... If the evidence ‘is sufficient only to raise a suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission of the offense or the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of it, the motion for nonsuit should be allowed. . . . This is true even though the suspicion so aroused by the evidence is strong.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “). II. Motion to Dismiss Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him for possession of cocaine with intent to manufacture, sell or deliver; manufacture of cocaine; maintaining a dwelling house for the keeping or selling of a controlled substance; and possession of drug paraphernalia. We disagree.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he manner of [the controlled substance's] packaging, labeling, and storage, along with the activities of a defendant may be considered in establishing intent to sell and deliver by circumstantial evidence.”
    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.