State v. Coffman’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2010
13 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 Donati v. Gualdoni · State v. Harris · State v. Taylor · Czapla v. Czapla · State v. Ludwig
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It would be patently unjust for a trial judge to refuse to grant a new trial in any case in which an accused was found guilty of a crime on the basis of false testimony, and the court “if satisfied that perjury had been committed and that an improper verdict or finding was thereby occasioned,” * * ⅞ would be under a duty to grant a new trial. That is to say “[wjhere it appears from competent and satisfying evidence that a witness for the prosecution has deliberately perjured himself and that without his testimony accused would not have been convicted, a new trial will be granted.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mooney
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.