Hammers v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2013
18 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 Lockhart v. McCree · Gaddis v. State · Emerson v. State · Coleman v. State · Penn 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]ew evidence will mandate a new trial only when the defendant demonstrates that: (1) the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (2) it is material and relevant; (3) it is not cumulative; (4) it is not merely impeaching; (5) it is not privileged or incompetent; (6) due diligence was used to discover it in time for trial; (7) the evidence is worthy of credit; (8) it can be produced upon a retrial of the case; and (9) it will probably produce a different result at retrial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A person conspires to commit a felony when, with intent to commit the felony, he agrees with another person to comtait the felony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State“[a] person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense commits that offense... .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thacker 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.