Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1987
8 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 94 Okla. Crim. 45 - Henderson v. State · 61 Okla. Crim. 352 - Armstrong v. State · 87 Okla. Crim. 223 - Ingram v. State · 87 Okla. Crim. 25 - Tobler v. State · 55 Okla. Crim. 173 - Isom 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"1. In determining whether a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence should be sustained, the trial court should consider these questions: 1. Is the evidence material? 2. Did the accused or his counsel exercise due diligence to discover the evidence before the trial? 3. Is it cumulative? 4. Is there a reasonable probability that if the newly discovered evidence had been introduced at the trial, it would have changed the result? "2. The granting of a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.