19 Ohio App. 3d 141 - State v. Walden’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 325 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 331 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 178 Ohio App. 3d 574 - State v. Parker (2008), 120 Ohio App. 3d 122 - State v. Aldridge (1997)
4 federal appellate · 325 state decisions
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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Holmes v. United States · 50 Ohio App. 224 - Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Myers · Seagrave v. Hall
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 331 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] party is unavoidably prevented from filing a motion for new trial if the party had no knowledge of the existence of the ground supporting the motion for new trial and could not have learned of the existence of that ground within the time prescribed for filing the motion for new trial in the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage““Motions for new trial on account of newly discovered evidence shall be filed within one hundred twenty days after the day upon which the verdict was rendered, or the decision of the court where trial by jury has been waived. If it is made to appear by clear and convincing proof that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from the discovery of the evidence upon which he must rely, such motion shall be filed within seven days from an order of the court finding that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within the one hundred twenty day period.” (Emphasis added.)”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“Crim. R. 33(B) contemplates a bifurcated procedure: (1) a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial supported by evidence demonstrating that the movant was unavoidably prevented from ascertaining the ground sought to be asserted by way of motion for new trial within fourteen days after the rendering of the verdict; and (2) if the motion be granted, the filing within seven days of the actual motion for new trial properly supported by affidavit demonstrating the existence of the grounds for the motion.”
3 later decisions 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.