Noble v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Henry v. State (1991), General Motors Corp. v. Seay (2005)
76 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 Estelle v. Williams · Lewis v. United States · Rogers v. United States · Mobil Alaska Pipeline Co. v. United States · Dorsey v. State
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[W]hen an appellant, in a criminal case, establishes error, unless a reviewing court, upon its own independent review of the record, is able to declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influenced the verdict, such error cannot be deemed "harmless” and a reversal is mandated. Such reviewing court must thus be satisfied that there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of—whether erroneously admitted or excluded—may have contributed to the rendition of the guilty verdict.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. State · Boulden v. State“[t]his Court has firmly adhered to the principle that the rules of procedure are precise rubrics to be strictly followed, and we shall continue to do so.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Boulden v. State · Stewart v. State“"[T]he harmless error principle is fully applicable to a defendant’s right to be present during a stage of the trial. Prejudice will not be conclusively presumed. If the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the denial of the right could not have prejudiced the defendant, the error will not result in a reversal of his .conviction.” 293 Md. at 568-69 , 446 A.2d at 854 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stewart v. State · State v. Hart
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.