Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 N.C. App. 96 - Warren v. Jackson

125 N.C. App. 96 - Warren v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
9
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Kansas Medical Mutual Insurance v. Svaty (2010), Daniels v. Gamma West Brachytherapy, LLC (2009)

35 state decisions

230199720002010decided

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 65 N.C. App. 626 - Willoughby v. KENNETH W. WILKINS, MD, PA · State v. Hart · Ede v. Atrium South OB-GYN, Inc. · Barsema v. Susong · 497 So. 2d 111 - Otwell v. Bryant

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

  1. “Application of the Rule 403 balancing test remains entirely within the inherent authority of the trial court. Thus, the balance struck by the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing the court abused its discretion by admitting, or excluding, the contested evidence. A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision “lack[s] any basis in reason.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Cross-examination of an opposing witness for the purpose of showing his bias or interest is a substantial legal right, which the trial judge can neither abrogate nor abridge to the prejudice of the cross-examining party.”
    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.