State v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
135 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably State v. Taylor (2008), State v. Abshire (2009)
135 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 · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Wainwright v. Witt · Hernandez v. New York · Negron v. United States
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling was manifestly unsupported by reason and could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[premeditation and deliberation are “processes of the mind” which are generally proved by circumstantial evidence. [State v. Smith, 357 N.C. 604, 616 , 588 S.E.2d 453, 461 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 941 , 159 L.Ed. 2d 819 (2004)]. “ ‘Premeditation means that [the] defendant formed the specific intent to kill the victim for some length of time, however short, before the actual killing.’ ” [State v. Cagle, 346 N.C. 497, 508 , 488 S.E.2d 535, 543 (1997) (quoting State v. Arrington, 336 N.C. 592, 594 , 444 S.E.2d 418, 419 (1994)), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1032 , 139 L.Ed. 2d 614 (1997)] (alteration in original). “ ‘Deliberation’ means that the defendant formed the intent to kill in a cool state of blood and not ás a result of a violent passion due to sufficient provocation.” State v. Truesdale, 340 N.C. 229, 234 , 456 S.E.2d 299, 302 (1995).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
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.