Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 290 N.C. 220 - Carolina v. Taylor

Carolina v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
May 1990
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 1990 · most notably State v. Baker (1984), State v. Leonard (1978)

28 state decisions

140197619801990decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mullaney v. Wilbur · State v. Lynch · State v. Propst · State v. Thompson

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

  1. “(n)o person may be tried, convicted, sentenced, or punished for a crime when by reason of mental illness or defect he is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own situation in reference to the proceedings, or to assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The general rule is that a hypothetical question which omits any reference to a fact which goes to the essence of the case and therefore presents a state of facts so incomplete that an opinion based on it would be obviously unreliable is improper and the expert’s answer to such a question will be excluded. However, it is not necessary to include in the hypothetical question all the evidence bearing upon the fact to be proved. The adversary has the right to present other phases of the evidence in counter-hypothetical questions so as to supply omitted facts and to ask the expert on cross-examination if his opinion would have been modified by the inclusion of such omitted facts. Dean v. Coach Co., 287 N.C. 515 , 215 S.E. 2d 89 ; State v. Stewart, 156 N.C. 636 , 72 S.E. 193 .”
    1 later decision 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.