State v. Ashworth’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 2013
15 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 Babich v. United States · State v. Boyd · State v. Lora · State v. Henson · State v. Arney
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The granting of a new trial for newly discovered evidence is in the trial court’s discretion. (State v. Larkin, 212 Kan. 158 , 510 P.2d 123 , cert. den. 414 U.S. 848 , 38 L.Ed.2d 95 , 94 S.Ct. 134 .) A new trial should not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence unless the evidence is of such materiality that it would be likely to produce a different result upon re-trial. (State v. Hale, 206 Kan. 521 , 479 P.2d 902 .) The credibility of the evidence offered in support of the motion is for the trial court’s consideration. (State v. Anderson, 211 Kan. 148 , 505 P.2d 691 ; State v. Larkin, [ 212 Kan. 158 ].) The burden of proof is on defendant to show the alleged newly discovered evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been produced at trial. (State v. Lora, 213 Kan. 184 , 515 P.2d 1086 ; State v. Arney, 218 Kan. 369 , 544 P.2d 334 .) The appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. (State v. Campbell, 207 Kan. 152 , 483 P.2d 495 ; State v. Anderson, [ 211 Kan. 148 ].)’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Richard““An experiment or demonstration is proper when conducted by the jury with the use of exhibits properly submitted to it for the purpose of testing the truth of statements made by witnesses or duplicating tests made by witnesses in open court. Christopher & Son v. Kansas Paint & Color Co., 215 Kan. 185 , Syl. P 12, 523 P.2d 709 (1974).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Benjamin v. State
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.