State v. Kirby’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
186 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 186 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably State v. Benton (1970), Adams v. North Carolina Department of Natural & Economic Resources (1978)
186 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · National Labor Relations Board v. Acme Industrial Co. · Pratt v. Bishop · State v. Gordon · Linkous v. Millner
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.
“'[ t]his assignment like a hoopskirt covers everything and touches nothing'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““Group I — Exceptions Nos. 6 (R p 25), 7 (R pp 25-26), 8 (R p 29), 9 (R p 30), 10 (R pp 31-32), 11 (R p 39), 12, 13 (R p 40), 14 (R pp 40-41), 15 (R p 41), 16 (R p 45), 17 (R pp 45-46), 18 (R p 46), 19 (R pp 46-47), 20 (R p 47), 21, 22 (R p 48), 23 (R pp 50-51), 24 (R p 52), 25 (R p 53), 26 (R pp 55-56), 27 (R pp 56-57), 28 (R p 59), 29 (R pp 61-62), 30 (R p 62), 31 (R pp 64-65), 32 (R p 66), 33 (R p 67), 34 (R pp 68-69), 35, 36 (R p 71), 37, 38 and 39 (R p 72). ‘The court below allowed prejudicial, irrelevant and immaterial evidence to be adduced in the presence of the jury to the prejudice of the defendant, and these for the Appellant are Exceptions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Assignments of error to the charge should quote the portion of the charge to which appellant objects, and assignments based on failure to charge should set out appellant’s contention as to what the court should have charged. State v. Wilson, 263 N.C. 533 , 139 S.E. 2d 736 . ‘When an exception relates to the charge, that portion to which the exception is taken must be set out in the particular assignment of error. A mere reference to the exception number and the page number of the record where the exception appears . . . will not present the alleged error for review. . . . ’ Samuel v. Evans and Cooper v. Evans, 264 N.C. 393 , 141 S.E. 2d 627 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Self
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.