State v. Workman’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 2018
6 federal appellate · 10 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 Strickland v. Washington · United States v. Bagley · Scharffe v. Perkins · Jones v. Howard · Bottoson v. Florida
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.
“After considering the arguments and authority cited by all of the parties, the Court is persuaded by the Petitioners’ argument. The Court points out that the plain text of the coram nobis statute clearly indicates that a writ will lie for newly discovered evidence if the judge determines that the evidence “may” have resulted in a different judgment. ... Based on this unambiguous language, the Court is of the opinion that the standard to be applied is whether the new evidence, if presented to the jury, may have resulted in a different outcome, and that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Petitioners’ contention is well taken.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Vasques“It is arguable that the “may have resulted in a different judgment” language should be viewed under the same standard as a motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. The test in such a situation is whether the newly discovered evidence “will likely change the result of the trial.” However, this appears on its face to be a higher standard than the “may have” language in the statute and the “might have” language used by our supreme court in Mixon . Furthermore, a lesser standard would appear to be more appropriate ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Vasques“Prosecutor: You’re not saying you lied, right? Davis: Right. Prosecutor: Ok. In the trial, you’re not saying— Davis: Right. Prosecutor: — You lied about that? Davis: Right. I’m not saying that. Prosecutor: You just don’t know. Davis: I just don’t remember. I just don’t know....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Workman v. Bell
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.