State v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably State v. Buckner (2000), Bacon v. Lee (2000)
24 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Teague v. Lane · Griffith v. Kentucky · McKoy v. North Carolina · Felker v. Turpin
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The court’s judgment has been filed, but the defendant failed to perfect a timely appeal; (2) The mandate issued by a court of the appellate division on direct appeal pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 32(b) and the time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court has expired without a petition being filed; (3) The United States Supreme Court denied a timely petition for writ of certiorari of the decision on direct appeal by the Supreme Court of North Carolina; (4) Following the denial of discretionary review by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the United States Supreme Court denied a timely petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the decision on direct appeal by the North Carolina Court of Appeals; (5) The United States Supreme Court granted the defendant’s or the State’s timely petition for writ of certiorari of the decision on direct appeal by the Supreme Court of North Carolina or North Carolina Court of Appeals, but subsequently left the defendant’s conviction and sentence undisturbed; or (6) The appointment of postconviction counsel for an indigent capital defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams“For purposes of applying the discovery provisions of new subsection (f) [of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1415], we conclude that those provisions apply retroactively to post-conviction motions for appropriate relief in capital cases, but only when such motions were filed before 21 June 1996 and had been allowed or were still pending on that date. In this context, the term “pending” means that on 21 June 1996 a motion for appropriate relief had been filed but had not been denied by the trial court, or the motion for appropriate relief had been denied by the trial court but the defendant had filed a petition for writ of certiorari which had been allowed by, or was still before, this Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Basden
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.