State v. Bird’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 1995
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Wrenn v. Weinberger · Brown v. Schweitzer · State v. Bird · State v. Richard · State v. Armstrong
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A new trial should not be granted on the grounds of newly discovered .evidence unless the evidence is of such materiality as to be likely to produce a different result at a new trial. Further, the defendant bears the burden of proving the evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been produced at trial. Appellate review of an order denying a new trial is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion.” State v. Bird, 244 Kan. 248 , Syl. ¶ 1, 768 P.2d 284 (1989).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Nunn
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.