In re Oliver’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 2011
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Pointer v. Texas · State v. Coffey · State v. Braxton · State v. Fortney · State v. Leroux
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] defendant’s right to cross-examination is subject to the sound discretion of the court and is therefore not absolute. See State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268 , 389 S.E.2d 48 (1990); State v. Pallas, 144 N.C. App. 277 , 548 S.E.2d 773 (2001). The testimony sought to be elicited on cross-examination “ ‘must be relevant to some defense or relevant to impeach the witness []’ ” and, in certain instances, may “ ‘bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process[]’ ” such as the rules of evidence. Pallas, 144 N.C. App. at 283 , 548 S.E.2d at 779 (citations omitted).”
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.