State v. Satterfield’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Brown (1985), State v. Simpson (1985)
2 federal appellate · 118 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 State v. Britt · State v. Bass · State v. Vinson · State v. Abernathy · State v. Hill
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is impossible on appellate review to determine whether exclusion of this testimony was prejudicial error. ‘A showing of the essential content or substance of the witness’s testimony is required before this Court can determine whether the error in excluding evidence is prejudicial.’ Otherwise stated, ‘[w]hen evidence is excluded, the record must sufficiently show what the purport of the evidence would have been, or the propriety of the exclusion will not be reviewed on appeal.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hester · State v. Fullwood“A defendant may move to suppress evidence at trial only if he demonstrates that he did not have a reasonable opportunity to make the motion before trial; or that the State did not give him sufficient advance notice (twenty working days) of its intention to use certain types of evidence; or that additional facts have been discovered after a pretrial determination and denial of the motion which could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before determination of the motion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] defendant who seeks to suppress evidence upon a ground specified in G.S. 15A-974 must comply with the procedural requirements outlined in G.S. 15A-971, et seq. Moreover, such defendant has the burden of establishing that his motion to suppress is timely and proper in form.”
2 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.