State v. McBane’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably State v. Cronin (1980), State v. Williams (1981)
68 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. Eason · State v. Thornton · State v. Guffey · State v. Nugent · State v. . Thomas
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘A valid warrant or indictment is an essential of jurisdiction.’ State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414 , 38 S.E. 2d 166 ; State v. Thornton, 251 N.C. 658, 660 , 111 S.E. 2d 901, 902 . The warrant or indictment must charge all the essential elements of the alleged criminal offense. State v. Morgan, supra. Nothing in G.S. 15-153 or in G.S. 15-155 [statutes dealing with certain informalities and defects that do not vitiate a warrant or indictment] dispenses with the requirement that the essential elements of the offense must be charged. State v. Gibbs, 234 N.C. 259, 261 , 66 S.E. 2d 883, 885 , and cases cited; State v. Strickland, 243 N.C. 100, 101 , 89 S.E. 2d 781 , 783.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The general allegation that defendant’s conduct constituted a misdemeanor in violation of [ N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153-266.6 ] is insufficient. The owner or agent of the owner of land within the ‘platting jurisdiction’ granted the county commissioners ... is the only person subject to criminal prosecution for violation of [ N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153-266.6 ]. ... In short, the warrant is fatally defective on account of its failure to allege one of the essential elements of the criminal offense created and defined in [ N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153-266.6 ], namely, that defendant was the owner or agent of the owner of land within the platting jurisdiction granted to the county commissioners. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A] board of county commissioners adopt[ed] an ordinance regulating the subdivision of land as authorized [in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153-266.6 ], [and] any person who, being the owner or agent of the owner of any land located within the platting jurisdiction granted to the county commissioners . . . transfers or sells such land by reference to a plat showing a subdivision of land before such plat [was] properly approved under such ordinance and recorded in the office of the appropriate register of deeds[.]””
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.