Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 300 N.C. 116 - State v. Clark

State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably State v. Huffstetler (1984), State v. Gardner (1984)

26 state decisions

2201980199020002010decided

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 Patterson v. United States · State v. Williams · State v. Greene · State v. Propst · State v. Cooper

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

  1. “The test for capacity to stand trial is whether a defendant has capacity to comprehend his position, to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a rational manner and to cooperate with his counsel[.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he record does not support his contention that the District Attorney acted in bad faith. The FBI report was not made a part of the record, and defendant failed to request a voir dire to determine whether the District Attorney acted in good faith. We have held that when the record contains no evidence regarding whether a District Attorney acted in good faith in inquiring into a defendant’s prior criminal offenses or reprehensible conduct, the court’s ruling permitting the question to be asked will be presumed to be correct. State v. McLean, 294 N.C. 623 , 242 S.E. 2d 814 (1978). Furthermore, any possible prejudice to defendant was negated by the fact that he was given the opportunity to explain that he had not been convicted of homicide. State v. McLean, supra. We find no merit in this assignment of error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Whether the cross-examination transcends propriety or is unfair is a matter resting largely in the sole discretion of the trial judge, who sees and hears the witnesses and knows the background of the case. His ruling thereon will not be disturbed without a showing of gross abuse of discretion.”
    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.