Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 293 N.C. 523 - State v. Currie

State v. Currie’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
October 1996
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 1996

22 state decisions

130197719801990decided

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 Dennis v. California · State v. Williams · State v. Colson · State v. Riddick · State v. Perry

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

  1. “For impeachment purposes, a witness, including the defendant in a criminal case, may be cross-examined with respect to prior convictions of crime and may be asked disparaging questions concerning collateral matters relat ing to his criminal and degrading conduct. [Citations omitted.] With respect to such collateral matters, the answers of the witness are conclusive in the sense that the record of his convictions cannot be introduced to contradict him. [Citations omitted.] By appropriate questions, however, the cross-examiner may continue to inquire about specific convictions already denied as well as other prior unrelated criminal convictions so as to “sift the witness.” [Citations omitted.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The scope of cross-examination rests largely in the discretion of the trial judge because he is present, hears the testimony, observes the demeanor of the witnesses, knows the background of the case, and is in a favored position to determine the proper limits of cross-examination. For these reasons his rulings thereon will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion amounting to prejudicial error.” [Citations omitted.]”
    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.