State v. Driskell’s Empirical Analysis
1906
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
July 1980
most recently cited
1 state decisions
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true there is a conflict in the evidence, and it was perhaps not an abuse of the discretion vested in the trial court in such cases to grant a new trial if he believed that material evidence introduced on the part of the state was false or that an injustice had been done the defendant by reason of false statements made by witnesses or misapprehension of facts by the jury. “Since the trial court has assigned no specific reason why he granted a new trial, it is as fair to presume that he granted it for this latter reason as for any other.” State v. Driskell, 12 Idaho 245, 249 , 85 P. 499, 501 (1906) (Ailshie, J., concurring).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Luther v. Howland
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.