Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 189 OHIOAPP3D 507 - State v. Arnold

State v. Arnold’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

56 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Chambers v. Mississippi · State v. Adams · Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · State v. Schiebel

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

  1. “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
  2. “It is well-established that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in calling a witness as a court's witness when the witness's testimony would be beneficial to ascertaining the truth of the matter and there is some indication that the witness's trial testimony will contradict a prior statement made to police.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A trial court possesses the authority in the exercise of sound discretion to call individuals as witnesses of the court.”
    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.