Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 N.C. App. 267 - State v. Escobar

187 N.C. App. 267 - State v. Escobar’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Vandygriff v. Phillips · White v. White · Karim-Panahi v. Commissioner · State v. Cheek · 86 N.C. App. 196 - State v. Vikre

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

  1. “In determining whether a forfeited bond may be remitted for extraordinary cause, courts consider the following factors: [(1)] the inconvenience and cost to the state and the courts; [(2)] the diligence of sureties in staying abreast of the defendant's whereabouts prior to the date of appearance and in searching for the defendant; [(3)] in cases where the defendant has died, the surety's diligence in obtaining information of the defendant's death; [(4)] the risk assumed by the sureties; and [(5)] the surety's status, be it private or professional.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “' Rule 52(a)(1) does not require recitation of evidentiary facts.' " Id. at 271 , 652 S.E.2d at 698 (quoting Chem. Realty Corp., 65 N.C.App. at 249 , 310 S.E.2d at 37 ). We determined instead that "[t]he trial court fulfilled its obligations under Rule 52(a)(1) because it made a specific finding of fact that [the surety]'s efforts resulted in locating Defendant, but the District Attorney was ultimately responsible for returning Defendant to Union County.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “resulted in locating [the defendant] in the penal system of another jurisdiction, but did not result in the apprehension or capture of [the defendant] by authorities in that jurisdiction.... [The defendant]'s return to this jurisdiction is by writ based upon the continuing efforts of the District Attorney to prosecute [the defendant] on the original charges in this jurisdiction.”
    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.