Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 318 N.C. 30 - State v. Penley

State v. Penley’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

101 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably State v. Coffey (1990), State v. Abraham (1994)

101 state decisions

5201986199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Ake v. Oklahoma · Oregon v. Bradshaw

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

  1. “A trial court may ‘properly determine that one factor in aggravation outweighs more than one factor in mitigation and vice versa.’ State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584, 596-97 , 300 S.E. 2d 689, 697 (1983). The weight to be given mitigating and aggravating factors is a matter solely within the trial court’s discretion, and the balance struck by the trial court will not be disturbed if supported by the record. Id.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In order to make a threshold showing of specific need for the expert sought, the defendant must demonstrate that: (1) he will be deprived of a fair trial without the expert assistance, or (2) there is a reasonable likelihood that it will materially assist him in the preparation of his case.”
    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.