Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 322 N.C. 452 - State v. Williams

State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably 183 N.C. App. 514 - State v. Bagley (2007), State v. Banks (1988)

38 state decisions

1601988199020002010decided

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 State v. Moore · State v. Cutshall · State v. Green

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

  1. “A witness may be cross-examined by confronting him with prior statements inconsistent with any part of his testimony, but where such questions concern matters collateral to the issues, the witness’s answers on cross-examination are conclusive, and the party who draws out such answers will not be permitted to contradict them by other testimony.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[Testimony concerning what [the brother-in-law] did or did not tell his probation officer was collateral to the issues in the case; therefore, it was improper to impeach him on this point by offering [extrinsic evidence].... [The extrinsic evidence] was not offered to prove that defendant had, in fact, made the alleged statements ... [but] was offered solely to contradict [the brother-in-law’s] testimony that he had not told [his probation officer] that defendant made these statements. While the substance of those statements and whether defendant made them would be material, whether [the brother-in-law] had told anyone about defendant’s statements is clearly collateral.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “question of defendant's guilt hing[ed] solely upon whether the jury believed his testimony or the prosecutrix's testimony.”
    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.