Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 539 So. 2d 1375 - McClendon v. State · 672 So. 2d 744 - Nicholson on Behalf of Gollott v. State · 669 So. 2d 44 - Williams v. State · 492 So. 2d 260 - Smith v. State · Moore 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Mississippi Supreme Court stated that the movant seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must provide evidence which satisfies the following elements: (1) that the new evidence was discovered since the trial, (2) that when using due diligence the evidence could not be discovered prior to trial, (3) that the evidence is material to the issue and that it is not merely cumulative or impeaching, and (4) that the evidence will probably produce a different result or verdict in the new trial. Whether the newly discovered evidence presented will likely change the outcome if a new trial were granted is a determination made by the trial court in its discretion and will not be overruled by this Court unless it is an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sonnenburg 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.