Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 N.C. App. 606 - State v. Mills

83 N.C. App. 606 - State v. Mills’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 2009

16 state decisions

100198619902000decided

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. McClain · State v. Morgan · State v. Monk · State v. Woods

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

  1. “[d]ue to the circumstances of the incident and its extreme remoteness, the evidence has no tendency to make the existence of premeditation or deliberation more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““[T]he dangerous tendency and misleading probative force of this class of evidence require that its admission should be subjected by the courts to rigid scrutiny. Whether the requisite degree of relevancy exists is a judicial question to be resolved in the light of the consideration that the inevitable tendency of such evidence is to raise a legally spurious presumption of guilt in the minds of the jurors. Hence, if the court does not clearly perceive the connection between the extraneous criminal transaction and the crime charged, that is, its logical relevancy, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the evidence should be rejected.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The proper inquiry in a self-defense claim focuses on the reasonableness of defendant’s belief as to the apparent necessity for, and reasonableness of, the force used to repel an attack upon his person. The fact that defendant may have pointed a gun at another person sometime in the past, without more, has no tendency to show that the defendant did not fear [the victim] or to make the existence of his belief as to the apparent necessity to defend himself from an attack “more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.””
    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.