45 Wash. App. 611 - State v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2016
5 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 Dixson v. United States · 96 Wash. 2d 215 - State v. Williams · 98 Wash. 2d 358 - State v. Saltarelli · 81 Wash. 2d 259 - State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n · 36 Wash. 2d 367 - State v. Goebel
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to one, may not be to another. Before affirming the grant of a new trial because the defense expert presented at trial overlooked or thought unimportant a fact or facts now deemed pertinent by an expert who did not testify, we must ask whether all of those defendants who could now unearth a new expert, who finds”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A new trial may be granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence only if each of five requirements is satisfied: the evidence (1) will probably change the result of the trial; (2) was discovered since the trial; (3) could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) is material; and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In sum, this strikes us as a classic case: the defendant loses, then hires a new lawyer, who hires a new expert, who examines the same evidence and produces a new opinion. We cannot accept this as a basis for a new trial.”
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.