Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 163 N.C. App. 676 - State v. Maniego

163 N.C. App. 676 - State v. Maniego’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 2025

14 state decisions

80200420102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Jones v. United States · Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen · Arizona v. Hicks

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

  1. “whether defendant was in custody, whether he was deceived, whether his Miranda rights were honored, whether he was held incommunicado, the length of the interrogation, whether there were physical threats or shows of violence, whether promises were made to obtain the confession, the familiarity of the declarant with the criminal justice system, and the mental condition of the declarant.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘[t]he charge of the court must be read as a whole ... , in the same connected way that the judge is supposed to have intended it and the jury to have considered it. . . .’ It will be construed contextually, and isolated portions will not be held prejudicial when the charge as [a] whole is correct. If the charge presents the law fairly and clearly to the jury, the fact that some expressions, standing alone, might be considered erroneous will afford no grounds for reversal.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If, when so construed, it is sufficiently clear that no reasonable cause exists to believe that the jury was misled or misinformed, any exception to it will not be sustained even though the instruction could have been more aptly worded.”
    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.