State v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 175 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 176 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably State v. Cooke (1982), State v. Benson (1988)
1 federal appellate · 175 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Brown v. Illinois · Dunaway v. New York · Maloy v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of West Palm Beach · State v. Grundler
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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a constitutional question which is not raised and passed upon in the trial court will not ordinarily be considered on appeal.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hen a confession is challenged on other grounds which are not clearly brought to the attention of the trial judge, a specific objection or explanation pointing out the reason for the objection or motion to suppress is necessary. In order to clarify any misunderstanding about the duty of counsel in these matters, we specifically hold that when there is an objection to the admission of a confession or a motion to suppress a confession, counsel must specifically state to the court before voir dire evidence is received the basis for his motion to suppress or for his objection to the admission of the evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Benson · State v. Cooke“G.S. 15A-974(2) provides that evidence “obtained as a result” of a substantial violation of the provisions of Chapter 15A must be suppressed upon timely motion, and that the use of the term “result” in the statute indicated that a causal relationship between a violation of the statute and the acquisition of the evidence sought to be suppressed must exist.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Caudill
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.