Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 312 N.C. 92 - State v. Huffstetler

State v. Huffstetler’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

198
cited by 198 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 191 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 198 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Rogers (1986), State v. Stokes (1987)

1 federal appellate · 191 state decisions

9001984199020002010decided

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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Lockett v. Ohio · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Michel v. United States · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.

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

  1. “[C]ounsel will be allowed wide latitude in the argument of hotly contested cases. [Citation omitted.] Counsel for each side may argue to the jury the facts in evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom together with the relevant law so as to present his or her side of the case. [Citation omitted.] Decisions as to whether an advocate has abused this privilege must be left largely to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.”
    5 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.