Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 303 N.C. 551 - State v. Rinck

State v. Rinck’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

103
cited by 103 later decisions
2
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 99 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably State v. Brown (1985), State v. Watkins (1994)

2 federal appellate · 99 state decisions

3301981199020002010decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Chimel v. California · Ohio v. Roberts · Beck v. State of Ohio · Dutton v. Evans

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

  1. “by their tenor, frequency, or persistence, the trial judge expresses an opinion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he instructions on both burglary and armed robbery were submitted to the jury as part of the murder charge. Under such circumstances, the underlying felonies became part of the first-degree murder charge, prohibiting a further prosecution of the defendant for the underlying felonies. Defendant McMurry could not have been lawfully convicted of robbery upon his indictment for first-degree murder. The court was therefore not required to instruct the jury as to the lesser included offenses of robbery.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(a) The declaration must be of such spontaneous character as to be a sufficient safeguard of its trustworthiness; that is, preclude the likelihood of reflection and fabrication; instinctive rather than narrative; (b) it must be contemporaneous with the transaction, or so closely connected with the main fact as to be practically inseparable therefrom; and (c) must have some relevancy to the fact sought to be proved.”
    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.