Chapman v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 2015
12 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 Cruce v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad · Hemminghaus v. Ferguson · Conner v. Neiswender · Baker v. Estate of Brown · Cochran v. Wilson
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A new trial should not be awarded on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unless the moving party first satisfies the following prerequisites ... by showing (1) that the.evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial, (2)' that his failure to learn of such evidence sooner was not due to want of diligence, (3) that such evidence is so material that it probably would produce a different result if the new trial were granted, (4) that it is not cumulative only, (5) that the object of the testimony is not merely to impeach the character or credit of a witness, and (6) that the affidavit of the witness himself is produced or its absence accounted for.”
1 later decision 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.