State v. Neal’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 2020
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Arney · State v. Armstrong · Hornback v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Rld. Co.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The evidence must be new; the defendant must show the evidence could not with reasonable. diligence have been produced at trial. State v. Neal, 243 Kan. 756, 760-61 , 763 P.2d 621 (1988). 2. The evidence must be of such materiality it would likely produce a different result at a new trial. State v. Neal, 243 Kan. at 760.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. State · Skaggs v. State“1. The evidence must be new; the defendant must show the evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been produced at trial. 24”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Skaggs 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.