T.M. v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on T.M. v. State · Barson v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. · ProMax Development Corp. v. Mattson · State v. Blasus · State v. Fosnow
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, it must be material, competent evidence which is in fact newly discovered. Second, it must be such that it could not, by due diligence, have been discovered and produced at trial. Finally, it must not be merely cumulative or incidental, but must be of sufficient substance that there is a reasonable likelihood that with it there would have been a different result.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“`of sufficient substance that with it there is a reasonable likelihood that there would have been a different result.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“); State v. Fosnow, 2001 WI App 2, ¶ 16 , 240 Wis.2d 699 , 624 N.W.2d 883 (same). However, because we conclude that Parents could have, with due diligence, garnered the proffered opinions prior to trial, and because we conclude that the trial court acted within its permitted range of discretion in determining that there was no reasonable likelihood of a different result even if the opinions had been considered, we do not today address whether new or different interpretations of old evidence constitute”
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.