Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 N.C. 37 - State v. Monk

State v. Monk’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

147
cited by 147 later decisions
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

147 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably State v. Silhan (1981), State v. Jones (1981)

147 state decisions

79019761980199020002010decided

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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Hoffa v. United States · Woodson v. North Carolina · Lutwak v. United States

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

  1. “[a] trial court is not required to give a requested instruction in the exact language of the request.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We have held in many cases that any minor misstatement in the trial judge’s statement of facts or contentions must be brought to his attention at trial. (Citations omitted.) The reason for this rule is that the trial judge should be given an opportunity to correct any misstatements in order to avoid the expense of a retrial. We have further held that a defendant may not avoid the operation of this rule by contending that the trial judge’s misstatements were impermissible expressions of opinion. (Citation omitted.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““[I]t is sufficient to hold that there is no standing to contest a search and seizure where, as here, the defendants: (a) were not on the premises at the time of the contested search and seizure; (b) alleged no proprietary or possessory interest in the premises; and (c) were not charged with an offense that includes, as an essential element of the offense charged, possession of the seized evidence at the time of the contested search and seizure.””
    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.