State v. Lawrence’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Rowland (1965), State v. McWilliams (1971)
69 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 State v. . Bell · State v. Chase · State v. Stewart · State v. McNeely · State v. . Lunsford
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the instant case defendant and the prosecuting witness had been drinking. Defendant told prosecuting witness that he owed him something and he (defendant) would get it himself. In the light of all of the circumstances disclosed by the State’s evidence, a contention by defendant that his actions amounted only to a forcible trespass may seem unreasonable indeed, but the weight and reasonableness of the evidence is for the jury, and defendant has the right to have the jury consider the case in accordance with his theory of the legal effect of his acts if his theory is supported by any permissible inference to be drawn from the evidence. State v. Guss, 254 N.C. 349 , 118 S.E. 2d 906 . The learned judge inadvertently failed to give a legal explanation of the term “felonious taking,” and to apply it to the facts. This was error which entitles defendant to a new trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the case before us the special verdict states what was done, but the intent is not stated. And it is very evident that that was the difficulty they had in coming to a general verdict. They could not satisfy themselves as to the intent. Was it the purpose to steal, or was it a Christmas frolic. Now that is not a question of law, but it is a question of fact which the jury ought to have found.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown“a taking with the felonious intent on the part of the taker to deprive the owner of his property permanently and to convert it to the use of the taker.”
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.