State v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably State v. Wilkerson (1978), State v. Johnson (1979)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 83 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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. Atkinson · State v. Propst · State v. Mercer · State v. Rogers · State 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[a]n accused is legally insane and exempt from criminal responsibility by reason thereof if he commits an act which would otherwise be punishable as a crime, and at the time of so doing is laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to be incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act he is doing, or, if he does know this, incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in relation to such act.’ ” State v. Potter, 285 N.C. 238, 249 , 204 S.E. 2d 649, 656 (1974), quoting State v. Swink, 229 N.C. 123, 125 , 47 S.E. 2d 852, 853 (1948).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Franks · State v. Thomas““That this condition has resulted from the use of a prescribed tranquilizing medication is of no legal consequence. Under the . . . test, the court looks to the condition only. It does not look beyond existing competency and erase improvement produced by medical science.” State v. Hampton, 218 So.2d 311, 312 (La. 1969), quoted in, State v. Potter, 204 S.E.2d 649, 656 (N.C. 1974); see also People v. Lalfonso, 16 Crim. L. Rptr. 2246 (Ill. App., Dec. 5, 1974).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Although double jeopardy and collateral estoppel are not directly involved in the present case . . . when the lives of all employees in a store are threatened and endangered by the use or threatened use of a firearm incident to the theft of their employer’s money or property, a single robbery with firearms is committed.” 285 N.C. at 253 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jones · State v. Sanders
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.