State v. Peele’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably State v. Gardner (1986), State v. Smith (1977)
57 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. Stephens · State v. Thompson · State v. Goldberg · State v. Bass · State v. Birckhead
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In general. — In all criminal cases before the superior court, the superior court judge assigned to hold the courts of the district wherein the case is pending, or the resident superior court judge of the district, shall for good cause shown, direct the solicitor or other counsel for the State to produce for inspection, examination, copying and testing by the accused or his counsel any specifically identified exhibits to be used in the trial of the case sufficiently in advance of the trial to permit the accused to prepare his defense; and such judge shall for good cause shown and regardless of any objection of the solictor or other counsel for the State, direct that the accused or his counsel be permitted to examine before any clerk of superior court, or any other person designated by the judge for the purpose, any expert witnesses to be offered by the State in the trial of the case regarding the proposed testimony of such expert witnesses. “Prior to issuance of any order for the inspecting, examining, copying or testing of any exhibit or the examination of any expert witness under this section the accused or his counsel shall have made a written request to the solicitor or other counsel for the State for such inspection, examination, copying- or testing of one or more specifically identified exhibits or the examination of a specific expert witness and have had such request denied by the solicitor or other counsel for the State or have had such request remain unanswered for ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Branch““Examination of the indictments, verdicts, and judgments discloses that the armed robbery charge was embraced in and made a part of the charge of murder in the first degree. Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure, Vol. 1, Section 148, states the rule: ‘It is generally agreed that if a person is tried for a greater offense, he cannot be tried thereafter for a lesser offense necessarily involved in, and a part of, the greater, . . . ’ Many cases recognize and apply the same principle. Among them are State v. Thompson, 280 N.C. 202 , 185 S.E. 2d 666 ; State v. Hatcher, 277 N.C. 380 , 177 S.E. 2d 892 ; State v. Parker, 262 N.C. 679 , 138 S.E. 2d 496 ; State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. 494 , 128 S.E. 2d 838 ; and State v. Bell, 205 N.C. 225 , 171 S.E. 50 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carroll
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.