248 N.C. App. 744 - State v. Hancock’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
July 2017
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 81 N.C. App. 56 - Opsahl v. Pinehurst Inc. · State v. Maness · 61 N.C. App. 531 - State v. Williamson · State v. Phifer · State v. Murchison
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(1). While it seems abundantly clear from the transcript that the trial court's decision to revoke defendant's probation was based on absconding, the written judgment could be construed to revoke his probation based on his commission of a new criminal offense. Finding 5(a) on the AOC-CR-607 standardized form judgment states:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“defendant committed his underlying offense prior to 1 December 2011, he was not subject to the JRA's 'absconding' condition of probation enacted in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(3a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“independent determination that [the] defendant committed the three offenses he was charged with ... as alleged in paragraphs ten and eleven of the 27 March 2013 violation report .”
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.