Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 325 N.C. 125 - State v. Quesinberry

State v. Quesinberry’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably State v. Robinson (1994), State v. Bacon (1994)

40 state decisions

3201989199020002010decided

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 Wainwright v. Witt · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Adams v. Texas · Mills v. Maryland

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

  1. “[EJxtraneous information [means] information dealing with the defendant or the case which is being tried, which information reaches a juror without being introduced into evidence. It does not include information which a juror has gained in his experience which does not deal with the defendant or the case being tried. The other matters contained in the affidavits, that votes were changed because of the foreman’s statements, that the foreman would not let a juror send a note to the judge, and that some of the jurors did not think the defendant was guilty dealt with deliberations in the jury room. A juror may not impeach a verdict by testifying to [such matters].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “This Court has unequivocally held that `[a]llowing jurors to impeach their verdict by revealing their `ideas' and `beliefs' influencing their verdict is not supported by case law, nor is it sound public policy.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “It is useful in proportionality review to compare the case under scrutiny to three clusters of cases in the pool — those cases resulting in sentences of life imprisonment in which the same aggravating circumstances occur, those “death affirmed” cases in which the same aggravating circumstances occurred, and those cases in which this Court has found the death sentence disproportionate.”
    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.