Shumaker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. When did the witnesses first become known to opposing counsel? 2. How vital is the potential witnesses' testimony to the case of the proponent of the witness-is it relevant and material or merely cumulative? 8. What is the nature of the prejudice to the opponent-would permitting the witnesses to testify have a deleterious impact on the case prepared by the opponent? 4. Are less stringent alternatives appropriate and effective to protect the interest of the parties? 5. Will the opponent be unduly surprised and prejudiced by the inclusion of the witnesses' testimony despite the available and reasonable alternatives (e.g., a recess or a continuance) to allow the opponent to interview the witnesses and conduct further investigation, if necessary?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tyson v. State

2. “While we agree that the extreme sanction of witness exclusion should rarely be imposed absent intentional concealment or substantial resulting prejudice, we cannot fault the trial judge for his imposition of the sanction in this case, given the nature and significance of the proposed testimony and the status of the trial at the time.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tyson v. State

3. “[albsent clear error and resulting prejudice, the trial court's determinations as to [discovery] violations and sanctions should not be over turned.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tyson v. State