Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 326 N.C. 298 - State v. Cummings

State v. Cummings’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

204
cited by 204 later decisions
4
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

204 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 204 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. McCollum (1993), State v. Green (1994)

204 state decisions

1360199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Illinois v. Gates · Lockett v. Ohio · Irvin v. Dowd · Wainwright v. Witt

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

  1. “The defendant is not allowed to rehabilitate a juror who has expressed unequivocal opposition to the death penalty in response to questions propounded by the prosecutor and the trial court. The reasoning behind this rule is clear. It prevents harassment of the prospective jurors based on their personal views toward the death penalty.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (3) Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition.— A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health)”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.”
    4 later decisions 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.