Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 297 N.C. 28 - State v. Ford

State v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably State v. Ashe (1985), State v. Patterson (1994)

27 state decisions

10019791980199020002010decided

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 Houchins v. KQED, Inc. · State v. Fulcher · State v. Covington · Calloway v. Ford Motor Company · State v. Sweezy

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

  1. “[i]t appears from the record that after deliberating for several hours, the jury returned to the courtroom whereupon the following exchange took place: [‘]COURT: All right, ladies and gentlemen, I understand you have a question. FOREMAN: Your Honor, we would like answered — we can’t remember which time did each man, Barbee and Ford, sign his rights and on what date was this, and what time did the detectives go out and pick up each man? COURT: Members of the jury, I’m sorry but we’re not allowed to go back in and review the evidence once the case is completed. It is your duty, of course, as best you can to recall all of the evidence that was presented, and I’m sorry, but we really can’t help you with that particular matter. [’] In [the] instant case, it appears that the trial judge erroneously believed that he was not permitted to review the evidence after the jury had begun its deliberation. We must, therefore, determine whether defendant has been prejudiced by the trial court’s ruling which was apparently based on a misapprehension of the law. . . . The requested evidence was, for the most part, conflicting, inconclusive, or not in the record. We note that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury that it was their duty ‘as best you can to recall all of the evidence that was presented.’ It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the trial judge to review this evidence in a comprehensible manner. Here, any attempt to review such evidence would likely have raised”
    5 later decisions 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.