Carlisle v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Livingston v. State (1987), Brasfield v. State (1980)
29 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 Brown v. State · Hernandez v. State · Indo v. State · Flores v. State · Cole 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the evidence was unknown to the movant before trial; (2) that the failure to discover it was not due to appellant’s want of diligence; (3) that its materiality was such as would probably bring about a different result on another trial; and (4) that it was competent, not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral or impeaching.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Long v. State · Tate v. State““The State argued that the testimony of the new witness was merely cumulative of the defendant’s own testimony that a third party was present in the car before the killing, and thus did not call for a new trial. Rejecting this, the Court held that the new testimony lent some credence to what was otherwise an inherently incredible account, and 'would certainly have affected [the jury’s] deliberations and might possibly have resulted in a different verdict,’ [Carlisle ], at 705, especially in view of the fact that the circumstantial evidence, while incriminating, was hardly conclusive. Apparently the Court found the new evidence at least creditable, if not ‘probably true.’ See n. 4, ante. In effect the Court ruled that under the circumstances the new evidence, if believed by the jury, would have injected reasonable doubt into the case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Long 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.