Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 51 CONNAPP 210 - State v. McDuffie

State v. McDuffie’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2018

20 state decisions

140199820002010decided

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 North Carolina v. Alford · State v. Golding · In re Disbarment of Adelman · State v. Davis · Cameron v. Cameron

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

  1. “[o]ur Supreme Court has criticized the practice whereby an attorney, cognizant of circumstances giving rise to an objection before or during trial, waits until after an unfavorable judgment to raise the issue. We have made it clear that we will not permit parties to anticipate a favorable decision, reserving a right to impeach it or set it aside if it happens to be against them, for a cause which was well known to them before or during the trial.... Nevertheless, [b]ecause an accusation of judicial bias or prejudice strikes at the very core of judicial integrity and tends to undermine public confidence in the established judiciary, this court has reviewed unpreserved judicial bias claims under the plain error doctrine.... Plain error exists only in truly extraordinary situations where the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In reviewing a claim of judicial bias, this court employs a plain error standard of review.... The standard to be employed is an objective one, not the judge's subjective view as to whether he or she can be fair and impartial in hearing the case.... Any conduct that would lead a reasonable [person] knowing all the circumstances to the conclusion that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned is a basis for the judge's disqualification.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]t is well settled that courts will not review a claim of judicial bias on appeal unless that claim was properly presented to the trial court through a motion for disqualification or a motion for mistrial.... Absent plain error, a claim of judicial bias cannot be reviewed on appeal unless preserved in the trial court.”
    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.