State v. Saba’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 22 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule has been firmly established by numerous decisions of this Court in criminal cases (citing State v. Williams, 38 La.Ann. 361 ; State v. Hill, 135 La. 625 , 65 So. 763 ; State v. Gardner, 157 La. 116 , 102 So. 89 and State v. Barton, 178 La. 859 , 152 So. 546 ) that on the hearing of a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the trial judge is justified in disbelieving the testimony of the alleged newly discovered witnesses, where such testimony is suspicious and incredible, and in refusing a new trial on that ground. When this clearly appears from the record, this Court will not interfere with the ruling.” (Cases cited in parenthesis and emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Bell

2. ““The discretion vested in the trial judge in passing on a motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence in a criminal case is to be exercised in determining the diligence shown, the truth of the matters stated, and the materiality and probability of their effect, if they are believed to be true. The presumption is that the trial judge in ruling upon the motion for a new trial properly exercised his discretion and his ruling denying the motion will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless the discretion is arbitrarily abused.” See State v. Saba, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Garner