State v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 177 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 186 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Britt v. North Carolina (1971), State v. Covington (1976)
3 federal appellate · 177 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 Zap v. United States · Dobias v. White · Linkous v. Millner · State v. . Weinstein · The People v. Preston
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 186 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]very circumstance that is calculated to throw any light upon the supposed crime is admissible. The weight of such evidence is for the jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The defendants’ first assignment of error is to the granting of the solicitor’s motion to consolidate the cases for trial. ■X- * * In S. v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671 , 158 S.E. 252 , in considering the identical question presented by this assignment of error, the Court said: ‘The court is expressly authorized by statute in this State to order the consolidation for trial of two or more indictments in which the defendant or defendants are charged with crimes of the same class, which are so connected in time or place as that evidence at the trial of one of the indictments will be competent and admissible at the trial of the others. C.S. 4622 (now G.S. 15-152). S. v. Cooper, 190 N.C. 528 , 130 S.E. 180 ; S. v. Jarrett, 189 N.C. 516 , 127 S.E. 590 ; S. v. Malpass, 189 N.C. 349 , 127 S.E. 248 .’ The three defendants were charged in separate bills of indictment with identical crimes. Therefore, the offenses charged are of the same class, relate to the same crime, and are so connected in time and place that evidence at the trial upon one of the indictments would be competent and admissible at the trial on the others. In such cases there is statutory authority for a consolidation. [Citing numerous authorities.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A guest or passenger in an automobile has no grounds for objection to a search of the car by a peace officer. . . .” (p.285.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Edwards
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.