Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 316 N.C. 33 - State v. Walker

State v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

305
cited by 305 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 303 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 305 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably State v. Lawrence (2012), Dogwood Development & Management Co. LLC v. White Oak Transport Co. (2008)

2 federal appellate · 303 state decisions

11401986199020002010decided

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 Doyle v. Ohio · State v. Odom · Morgan Walton Properties, Inc. v. International City Bank & Trust Co. · United States v. McCaskill · State v. Oliver

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

  1. “and caused the jury to reach its verdict convicting the defendant. Therefore, the test for”
    47 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done.'”
    22 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “1. A party may not, after trial and judgment, comb through the transcript of the proceedings and randomly insert an exception notation in disregard of the mandates of Rule 10(b). 2. Where no action was taken by counsel during the course of the proceedings, the burden is on the party alleging error to establish its right to review; that is, that an exception, “by rule or law was deemed preserved or taken without any such action,” or that the alleged error constitutes plain error. In so doing, a party must . . . establish his right to review by asserting . . . how the error amounted to a plain error or defect affecting a substantial right which may be noticed although not brought to the attention of the trial court.”
    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.