In Re Spivey’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp. (2004), In Re John M. (2001)
50 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 Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · William Marbury v. James Madison · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Reserve Life Insurance v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. · Bond v. Floyd
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]o fact is more generally known than that a white man who calls a black man a 'nigger' within his hearing will hurt and anger the black man and often provoke him to confront the white man and retaliate”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Hk · State v. Myers“it is crucial to note that this matter was heard without a jury. In this context, we cannot say the trial court erred in allowing the African-American citizens who testified to give anecdotal testimony relating to the pain and frustration they had felt as a result of long-past acts of racism. Where, as here, the trial judge acted as the finder of fact, it is presumed that he disregarded any inadmissible evidence that was admitted and based his judgment solely on the admissible evidence that was before him. Bizzell v. Bizzell, 247 N.C. 590, 604-06 , 101 S.E.2d 668, 678-79 , cert. denied, 358 U.S. 888 , 3 L.Ed.2d 115 (1958). The ultimate finding of the superior court, that Spivey’s conduct giving rise to this inquiry was conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute, is supported by the evidence and the other findings. The statute itself compels removal upon a finding of one of the enumerated grounds and leaves no discretion in this regard with the superior court. N.C.G.S. § 7A-66. Therefore, this assignment of error must be overruled.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“gives acts of the General Assembly great deference, and a statute will not be declared unconstitutional under our Constitution unless the Constitution clearly prohibits that statute.”
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.