State v. Stegmann’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably State v. Barfield (1979), State v. Silhan (1981)
78 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 Ohio v. Kentucky · Pope v. Nebraska · Maloy v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of West Palm Beach · State v. Williams · State v. McClain
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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 passagee.g. State v. Abernathy · State v. Cox““It is the duty of the prosecuting attorney in all phases of the trial to present the State’s case with earnestness and vigor and to use every legitimate means to bring about a just conviction.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Miller · State v. Britt““Counsel for both sides are entitled to argue to the jury the law and the facts in evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. State v. Conner, 244 N.C. 109 , 92 S.E. 2d 668 (1956) ; State v. Willard, 241 N.C. 259 , 84 S.E. 2d 899 (1954) ; State v. Campo, 233 N.C. 79 , 62 S.E. 2d 500 (1950). Language may be used consistent with the facts in evidence to present each side of the case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Miller
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.