Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 Ohio App. 3d 145 - State v. Johnson

155 Ohio App. 3d 145 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2023

10 state decisions

40200320102020decided

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. Hawkins · 13 Ohio App. 3d 117 - State v. Shepard · 11 Ohio App. 3d 292 - City of Toledo v. Stuart

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

  1. “(A) Grounds. A new trial may be granted on motion of the defendant for any of the following causes affecting materially his substantial rights: {¶ 25} "* * * {¶ 26} "(6) When new evidence material to the defense is discovered, which the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial. When a motion for a new trial is made upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must produce at the hearing on the motion, in support thereof, the affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given, and if time is required by the defendant to procure such affidavits, the court may postpone the hearing of the motion for such length of time as is reasonable under all the circumstances of the case. The prosecuting attorney may produce affidavits or other evidence to impeach the affidavits of such witnesses.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “disclose a strong probability that it will change the result if a new trial is granted.”
    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.