Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 321 N.C. 19 - State v. Fisher

State v. Fisher’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably State v. Carter (1988), 159 N.C. App. 534 - State v. Lawson (2003)

26 state decisions

801987199020002010decided

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 United States v. Leon · Manson v. Brathwaite · State v. Harris · State v. Lampkins · State v. Belton

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

  1. “"(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness's degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “First, the Court must determine whether the pretrial identification procedures were unnecessarily suggestive. If the answer to this question is affirmative, the court then must determine whether the unnecessarily suggestive procedures were so impermissibly suggestive that they resulted in a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Whether a substantial likelihood exists depends on the totality of the circumstances.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]hile in-court identifications are generally admitted, they may be excluded if tainted by a prior confrontation in circumstances shown to be unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.”
    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.