Lang v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 2001
19 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 Lang v. State · 92 So. 2d 651 - Johnson v. State · Bryant v. State · Carraway v. State · Stewart v. State
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Of course, if newly discovered evidence will not probably produce a different result or induce a different verdict, it is not sufficient to warrant the granting of a new trial. Carraway v. State, 167 Miss. 390 , 148 So. 340 ; Thornton v. State, 178 Miss. 304 , 170 So. 541 ; Stewart v. State, 203 Miss. 295 , 33 So.2d 787 ; Brockman v. State, 216 Miss. 314 , 62 So.2d 362 ; Townsel v. State , [228] Miss. [110], 87 So.2d 481 . But, conversely, if, by legal standards, it will probably produce a different result or induce a different verdict, it is sufficient and should require a new trial. This is the true rule.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The purpose of such hearing was to give the State an opportunity to controvert the allegations, demand proof, if it so desired, and offer such contradictory evidence as it might desire.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Such a petition should be confined to the narrowest limits compatible with justice; it will be sustained only if the newly discovered evidence is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that it would cause a different result; it will not be sustained if the petitioner or his attorney knew of the existence of such evidence at the time of the trial, or could have discovered it by the exercise of due diligence; it will not be sustained if the newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative, or additional to that adduced at the trial; it will not be sustained if the newly discovered evidence merely tends to impeach other testimony offered at the trial; and it must be filed as soon as reasonably practical after the discovery of the new evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kennard 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.