State v. Litteral’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably State v. Cunningham (2000), State v. Apodaca (1994)
52 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 Davis v. Alaska · United States v. Jorn · Arizona v. Washington · Bibby v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank
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) it will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) it must have been discovered since the trial; (3) it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) it must be material; (5) it must not be merely cumulative; and (6) it must not be merely impeaching or contradictory.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sosa · State v. Desnoyers“`An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`we can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by reason.'”
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.