Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 N.C. 57 - State v. McEachern

State v. McEachern’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
4
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably State v. Ramey (1986), State v. Blackstock (1985)

63 state decisions

28019731980199020002010decided

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 Lutwak v. United States · State v. Carter · State v. Perry · State v. Belk · State v. Beal

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

  1. ““The rule is, that when an impeaching or sustaining character witness is called, he should first be asked whether he knows the general reputation and character of the witness or party about which he proposes to testify. This is a preliminary qualifying question which should be answered yes or no. If the witness answer it in the negative, he should be stood aside without further examination. If he reply in the affirmative, thus qualifying himself to speak on the subject of general reputation and character, counsel may then ask him to state what it is. This he may do categorically, i. e., simply saying that it is good or bad, without more, or he may, of his own volition, but without suggestion from counsel offering the witness, amplify or qualify his testimony, by adding that it is good for certain virtues or bad for certain vices. S. v. Colson, 193 N.C., 236 , 136 S.E., 730 ; S. v. Nance, 195 N.C., 47 , 141 S.E., 468 .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In Oakley the court’s question expressed an opinion that the tracks were made by defendant. This crucial proof had not been shown by other evidence. In Cureton the fact that defendant had shot the deceased was supported by ample evidence, and the judge’s question only sought clarification as to when and where the shooting took place. The defendant did not deny that he shot the deceased and in fact later testified that he fired the fatal shots, but that he did so in self defense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[I]nquiry into reputation should not be necessarily confined to the residence . . . but should be extended to any community or society in which the person has a well-known or established reputation. Such reputation must be his general reputation, held by an appreciable group of people who have had adequate basis upon which to form their opinion. Of course, the testifying witness must have sufficient contact with that community or society to qualify him. . . .”
    2 later decisions 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.