162 Ind. App. 115 - State v. Kolb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * ^2) the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (2) that it is material and relevant; (3) that it is not cumulative; (4) that it is not merely impeaching; (5) that it is not privileged or incompetent; (6) that due diligence was used to discover it in time for trial; (7) that the evidence is worthy of credit; (8) that it can be produced upon a retrial of the case; and (9) that it will probably produce a different result.” Emerson v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 399, 407 , 287 N.E.2d 867, 872 . See also Hunt v. State, (1975) 264 Ind. 44 , 338 N.E.2d 641 ; Jones v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 159 , 312 N.E.2d 856 ; State v. Kolb, (1974) Ind. App., 318 N.E.2d 382 ; Curry v. State, (1972) 154 Ind. App. 685 , 290 N.E.2d 729 ; Dixon v. State, (1972) 154 Ind. App. 603 , 290 N.E.2d 731 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. State

2. “some substantial basis or circumstance . . . which would satisfactorily mitigate a petitioner's failure to have pursued or perfected a remedy,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moore v. Duckworth