State v. Swaney’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Powell (1980), State v. Bass (1972)
98 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 Chapman v. State of California · Bruton v. United States · Roviaro v. United States · Harrington v. California · Dutton v. Evans
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It is the general rule, subject to certain exceptions and limitations . . . that the prosecution is privileged to withhold from an accused disclosure of the identity of an informer.’ (Citation omitted.) ‘The privilege is founded upon public policy, and seeks to further and protect the public interest in effective law enforcement. It recognizes the obligation of citizens to communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law enforcement officers, and by preserving their anonymity, encourages them to perform that obligation. The privilege is designed to protect the public interest, and not to protect the informer.’ (Citation omitted.) The propriety of disclosing the identity of an informer depends on the circumstances of the case. (Citations omitted.)” At p. 608.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Perry · State v. Ketchie““Where a statute sets forth disjunctively several means or ways by which the offense may be committed, a warrant thereunder correctly charges them conjunctively.” 4 Strong’s N.C. Index 2d, Indictment and Warrant § 9, p. 353; State v. Chestnutt, 241 N.C. 401 , 85 S.E.2d 297 . The indictment should not charge a party dis-junctively or alternatively, in such a manner as to leave it uncer tain what is relied on as the accusation against him. The proper way is to connect the various allegations in the indictment with the conjunctive term “and,” and not with the word “or.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(b) A violation of the defendant’s rights under the Constitution of the United States is prejudicial unless the appellate court finds that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is upon the State to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bright
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.