Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 N.C. 407 - State v. Chapman

State v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably State v. Wilkerson (1978), State v. Wilson (1985)

83 state decisions

54019781980199020002010decided

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 Lutwak v. United States · State v. Covington · State v. Lynch · State v. Greene · State v. Turner

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

  1. “[W]e regard the trial judge’s refusal to allow counsel to complete the record as a regrettable judicial mistake. A judge should be loath to deny an attorney his right to have the record show the answer a witness would have made when an objection to the question is sustained. In refusing such a request the judge incurs the risk (1) that the Appellate Division may not concur in his judgment that the answer would have been immaterial or was already sufficiently disclosed by the record, and (2) that he may leave with the bench and bar the impression that he acted arbitrarily.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““When a defendant introduces evidence of his good character, the State has the right to introduce evidence of his bad character, but it is error to permit the State to cross-examine the character witnesses as to particular acts of misconduct on the part of the defendant. Neither is it permissible for the State to introduce evidence of such misconduct. The general rule is that a character witness may be cross-examined as to the general reputation of the defendant as to particular vices or virtues, bút not as to specific acts of misconduct.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A mistrial is appropriate only for serious improprieties which render impossible a fair and impartial verdict under the law.”
    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.