Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 N.C. App. 45 - State v. Wall

96 N.C. App. 45 - State v. Wall’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 2017

21 state decisions

801989199020002010decided

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 Town of Mashpee v. Mashpee Tribe · State v. Perry · State v. Chatman · State v. Creason · State v. McKinnon

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

  1. “[A]n indictment for the sale and/or delivery of a controlled substance must accurately name the person to whom the defendant allegedly sold or delivered, if that person is known. A defendant must be convicted, if at all, of the particular offense charged in the indictment. The State’s proof must conform to the specific allegations contained in the indictment. If the evidence fails to do so, it is insufficient to convict the defendant of the crime as charged.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Defendant’s guilty knowledge may be shown by circumstantial evidence. In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine if there is substantial evidence of every essential element of the crime. Evidence is “substantial” if a reasonable person would consider it sufficient to support the conclusion that the essential element exists.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the defendant operated the Midnight Express where beer is sold and dance hall is maintained under conditions rendering his possession of controlled substances for purpose of sale, particularly aggravating because of large public dependence and exposure to opportunity for abuse of controlled substances.”
    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.