Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 N.C. App. 540 - State v. Davidson

77 N.C. App. 540 - State v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Spriggs v. Collins (1993), 104 N.C. App. 558 - State v. Joyce (1991)

48 state decisions

2001985199020002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Gardner v. Florida · Cherek v. United States · State v. Braswell · State v. Irwin

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

  1. “[s]ince none of the property was kept in the dressing room, it was not necessary to move the victims there in order to commit the robbery. Removal of the victims to the dressing room thus was not an inherent and integral part of the robbery.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Any person who shall unlawfully confine, restrain, or remove from one place to another, any other person 16 years of age or over without the consent of such person . . . shall be guilty of kidnapping if such confinement, restraint or removal is for the purpose of: . . . (2) Facilitating the commission of any felony or facilitating flight of any person following the commission of a felony[.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “altogether lacking in positive advocacy. Counsel offered no argument in defendant’s favor, made no plea for findings of mitigating factors, . . . failed to suggest any favorable or mitigating aspects of defendant’s background, and failed even to advocate leniency. More significant, the representation consisted almost exclusively of commentary entirely negative to defendant.”
    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.