Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 312 N.C. 34 - State v. Baker

State v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

80 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably State v. Braswell (1985), State v. Biber (2011)

80 state decisions

3401984199020002010decided

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 Edwards v. Arizona · Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe · State v. Oliver · State v. Jerrett · State v. Bush

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

  1. “are not challenged on appeal, they are deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “by reason of mental illness or defect he is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own situation in reference to the proceedings, or to assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A motion for continuance is ordinarily addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling is not subject to review absent an abuse of discretion. However, if the motion is based on a right guaranteed by the Federal and State constitutions, the question presented is one of law and not of discretion, and the ruling of the trial court is reviewable on appeal. Whether a defendant bases his appeal upon an abuse of discretion or a denial of his constitutional rights, he must show both that there was error in the denial of the motion and that he was prejudiced thereby before he will be granted a new trial.”
    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.