Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 280 N.C. 700 - State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
June 2002
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2002 · most notably State v. Taylor (1981), State v. Greene (1978)

38 state decisions

2201972198019902000decided

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. White · State v. . Combs · State v. . Harvell · State v. . Charles · State v. . Waters

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[I]n determining whether an accused has been prejudiced by joinder ‘. . . The question is not whether the evidence at the trial of one case would be competent and admissible at the trial of the other. The question is whether the offenses are so separate in time and place and so distinct in circumstances as to render a consolidation unjust and prejudicial to defendant.’ ” State v. Greene, supra at 423, 241 S.E. 2d at 665 (quoting State v. Johnson, 280 N.C. 700, 704 , 187 S.E. 2d 98, 101 (1972). (Emphasis in original.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the trial court must determine whether the offenses are “so separate in time and place and so distinct in circumstances as to render the consolidation unjust and prejudicial to defendant.” Thus, there must be some type of “transactional connection” between the offenses before they may be consolidated for trial. In addition, the trial judge’s exercise of discretion in consolidating charges will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the defendant has been denied a fair trial by the order of consolidation.”
    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.