State v. Canady’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Thomas (1992), 108 N.C. App. 338 - State v. Buchanan (1992)
68 state decisions
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. Oliver · State v. Perry · State v. Thompson · State v. Elam · 57 N.C. App. 650 - Anderson Chevrolet/Olds, Inc. v. Higgins
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n error at sentencing is not considered an error at trial for the purpose of [Appellate] Rule 10(b)(1) because this rule is `directed to matters which occur at trial and upon which the trial court must be given an opportunity to rule in order to preserve the question for appeal.'”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“Assuming Rule 10 requires an exception to be made to the finding of an aggravating factor, we hold the defendant has complied with the Rule. At the time of sentencing the judge said, "[f]or the record, the Court did take into consideration two previous felony convictions, possession of marijuana and LSD, and a charge of escape from the department of corrections." The defendant marked an exception to this statement and made it the subject of an assignment of error. This was sufficient to preserve the question for appellate review. Justice Meyer in his dissent relies on Rule 10 [ (a) ](1) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and argues that an objection to the finding of the aggravating factor should have been made at the time the factor was found. .... [ Rule 10(a)(1) ] does not have any application to this case. It is directed to matters which occur at trial and upon which the trial court must be given an opportunity to rule in order to preserve the question for appeal. The purpose of the rule is to require a party to call the [trial] court's attention to a matter upon which he or she wants a ruling before he or she can assign error to the matter on appeal. If we did not have this rule, a party could allow evidence to be introduced or other things to happen during a trial as a matter of trial strategy and then assign error to them if the strategy does not work. That is not present in this case. The defendant did not want the [trial] court to find the aggravating factor, and th”
2 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.