Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 Ohio App. 3d 117 - State v. Shepard

13 Ohio App. 3d 117 - State v. Shepard’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 102 Ohio App. 3d 534 - State v. Blankenship (1995), 73 Ohio App. 3d 827 - State v. Taylor (1991)

44 state decisions

2001983199020002010decided

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 148 Ohio St. 505 - State v. Petro · State v. Williams · 56 Ohio App. 2d 37 - State v. Kiraly

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

  1. “[w]hen new evidence material to the defense is discovered which the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “{¶ 16} “To warrant the granting of a motion for a new trial in a criminal case, based on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it must be shown that the new evidence (1) discloses a strong probability that it will change the result if a new trial is granted, (2) has been discovered since the trial, (3) is such as could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered before the trial, (4) is material to the issues, (5) is not merely cumulative to former evidence, and (6) does not merely impeach or contradict the former evidence.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[A]ppellant must meet three requirements of Crim.R. 33(A)(6) to prevail. First, appellant must have used reasonable diligence in trying to find the evidence. Second, appellant must present affidavits to inform the trial court of the substance of the evidence that would be used if a new trial were to be granted. Third, the evidence presented must be of such weight that a different result would be reached at the second trial.”
    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.