Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 233 N.C. 511 - State v. Hicks

State v. Hicks’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
2
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

90 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably State v. Irick (1977), State v. Goldberg (1964)

90 state decisions

2801951196019701980199020002010decided

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 State v. . Lea · State v. . King · State v. . Bell · State v. Strickland · State v. . Strickland

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

  1. ““It is an ancient and basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that no one shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. “Whether the facts alleged in the second indictment, if given in evidence, would have sustained a conviction under the first is always to be determined by the court from an inspection of the two indictments. S. v. Nash, supra, ( 86 N.C. 650 ). Whether the same evidence would support a conviction in each case is to be determined by a jury from extrinsic testimony if the plea of former jeopardy avers facts dehors the record showing the identity of the offense charged in the first with that set forth in the last indictment. S. v. Bell, supra ( 205 N.C. 225 , 171 S.E. 50 ).””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The defendant was not entitled to have the action nonsuited on the theory that the crime alleged was committed outside the State. While the conspiracy was formed in South Carolina, one of the conspirators, namely, Chesley Morgan Lovell, committed overt acts in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, in furtherance of the common design. As a consequence, the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County had jurisdiction to try the action. [Citations omitted] In legal contemplation, a criminal conspiracy is continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design.” 64 S. E. 2d, at pages 875-876.”
    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.