Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 288 N.C. 19 - State v. Stanley

State v. Stanley’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
3
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

113 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably State v. Allen (2005), Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp. (1999)

113 state decisions

42019751980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Russell · Sorrells v. United States · Sherman v. United States · Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist · State v. Williams

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

  1. “This Court will not hesitate to exercise its rarely used general supervisory authority when necessary to promote the expeditious administration of justice. Under unusual and exceptional circumstances [the Court] will exercise this power to consider questions which are not properly presented according to [its] rules.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Ordinarily, if the evidence presents an issue of entrapment, it is a question of fact for the jury to determine. ... The court can find entrapment as a matter of law only where the undisputed testimony and required inferences compel a finding that the defendant was lured by the officers into an action he was not predisposed to take.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[l]aw enforcement `may rightfully furnish to the players of [the drug] trade opportunity to commit the crime in order that they may be apprehended. It is only when a person is induced by the officer to commit a crime which he did not contemplate that we must draw the line.'”
    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.