Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 N.C. App. 373 - State v. Richardson

36 N.C. App. 373 - State v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
April 2000
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2000 · most notably State v. Weldon (1985), State v. Willis (1983)

29 state decisions

2201978198019902000decided

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. McClain · State v. Williams · State v. . Love · State v. . Holland · State v. Turner

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

  1. “In drug cases, evidence of other drug violations is relevant and admissible if it tends to show . . . disposition to deal in illicit drugs. ... 36 N.C. App. at 375 , 243 S.E. 2d at 919 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Evidence of other offenses is inadmissible on the issue of guilt if its only relevancy is to show the character of the accused or his disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the one charged; but if it tends to prove any other relevant fact it will not be excluded merely because it also shows him to have been guilty of an independent crime.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “We find little support in case law for the proposition that the trial court is required to charge that a police officer or any other witness is an interested witness as a matter of law. ... However, the court, though it charges that defendant is an interested witness, is not required to find that any other witness is per se an interested witness.”
    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.