99 N.C. App. 658 - State v. Huang’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 107 N.C. App. 710 - Huang v. North Carolina State University (1992), 141 N.C. App. 553 - State v. Chavis (2000)
1 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
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. Bullard · State v. Smith · State v. Kennedy · State v. Saldana · State v. Allewalt
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“assist the jury in understanding the evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cesnik · State v. Mackey“1. The expert must be better qualified than the jury to render the opinion regarding the particular subject based on his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. 2. The testimony of the expert must be helpful. 3. The expert’s scientific technique on which he bases his opinion must be reliable. 4. The evidence must be relevant. 5. Its probative value must not be outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. 6. The expert’s opinion is not inadmissible solely because it embraces an ultimate issue, but the expert must not be allowed to testify that a particular legal conclusion or standard has or has not been met. (Citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In [the victim’s] case in particular, she became very fearful both of Mr. Huang and also just more generally, she felt very vulnerable in the world. She also had a sense of real loss about the relationship with Mr. Huang’s wife. . . . One does not expect a friend to attack you, to violate your integrity, to violate your space. . . . So, when it happens at the hands of a friend, it violates the sense of trust even more. I think in terms of justice what is very important to understand is that [the victim] spent a lot a[sic] time trying to understand how could this have happened, how could something this unjust have happened and this again is all part of the psychological process you see in response to a traumatic event.”
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.