State v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
125 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably State v. Ashe (1985), State v. Tolley (1976)
125 state decisions
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 Miller v. . Greenwood · State v. . Owenby · State v. Hart · State v. . Epps · State 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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The comment made or the question propounded should be considered in the light of all the facts and attendant circumstances disclosed by the record, and unless it is apparent that such infraction of the rules might reasonably have had a prejudicial effect on the result of the trial, the error will be considered harmless.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is well settled in this jurisdiction that it is improper for a trial judge to ask questions for the purpose of impeaching a witness. . . . On the other hand, there are times in the course of a trial, when it becomes the duty of the judge to propound competent questions in order to obtain a proper understanding and clarification of the testimony of the witness or to bring out some fact that has been overlooked. But the trial judge should not by word or mannerism convey the impression to the jury that he is giving it the benefit of his opinion on the facts. . . . The comment made or the question propounded should be considered in the light of all the facts and attendant circumstances disclosed by the record, and unless it is apparent that such infraction of the rules might reasonably have had a prejudicial effect on the result of the trial, the error will be considered harmless.” See also State v. Goldberg, 261 N.C. 181 , 134 S.E. 2d 334 ; State v. Hoover, 252 N.C. 133 , 113 S.E. 2d 281 ; and 2 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 99.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“every ill-advised comment by the trial judge”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.