Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 359 N.C. 199 - State v. Smith

State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

28 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Wainwright v. Witt · Skipper v. South Carolina · Nebraska v. Wyoming · Payless Wholesale Distributor, Inc. v. Albert Culver (P.R.) Inc. · Trident Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

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

  1. “cause additional restraint of the victim or increase the victim's helplessness and vulnerability.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(h) In order for a defendant to seek reversal of the case on appeal on the ground that the judge refused to allow a challenge made for cause, he must have: (1) Exhausted the peremptory challenges available to him; (2) Renewed his challenge as provided in subsection (i) of this section; and (3) Had his renewal motion denied as to the juror in question. (i) A party who has exhausted his peremptory challenges may move orally or in writing to renew a challenge for cause previously denied if the party either: (1) Had peremptorily challenged the juror; or (2) States in the motion that he would have challenged that juror peremptorily had his challenges not been exhausted. The judge may reconsider his denial of the challenge for cause, reconsidering facts and arguments previously adduced or taking cognizance of additional facts and arguments presented. If upon reconsideration the judge determines that the juror should have been excused for cause, he must allow the party an additional peremptory challenge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he impropriety of the argument must be gross indeed in order for this Court to hold that a trial judge abused his discretion in not recognizing and correcting ex mero motu an argument which defense counsel apparently did not believe was prejudicial when he heard it.”
    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.