Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 126 Vt. 250 - State v. Jackson

State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
3
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably State Ex Rel. Pope v. Superior Court (1976), State v. Patnaude (1981)

34 state decisions

160196719701980199020002010decided

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. Coburn · State v. Teitle · State v. Long · State v. Danforth · State v. Doherty

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

  1. “(1) that the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) that it has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) that it is material to the issue; [and] (5) that it is not merely cumulative or impeaching.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to him if required in the interests of justice. ... A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment.... A motion for a new trial based on any other grounds shall be made within 10 days after verdict or finding of guilty or within such further time as the court may fix during the 10-day period.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a witness may be cross-examined as to collateral facts which tend to test his accuracy or veracity, but the cross-examiner must be content with the witness' answers, and cannot contradict them by independent proof.”
    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.