Davidson v. Perron’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) Whether the nature of defendant’s violation was trivial or substantial. The trial court should consider when the witness first became known to defendant’s counsel. (2) .How vital the potential witness’ testimony is to the defendant’s case. The trial court should determine the significance of the proffered testimony to the defense. Is the testimony relevant and material to the defense or merely cumulative? (3) The nature of the prejudice to the State. Does the violation have a delete- rieras impact on the case prepared by the State? (4) Whether the less stringent sanctions are appropriate and effective to protect the interest of both the defendant and the State. (5) Whether the State will be unduly surprised and prejudiced by the inclusion of the witness’ testimony despite the available and reasonable alternative sanctions (e.g., a recess or a continuance) which can mitigate prejudice to the State by permitting the State to interview the witnesses and conduct further investigation, if necessary.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Sharon Wright and Leslie Wright v. Anthony E. Miller, D.P.M., and Achilles Podiatry Group · Carter v. Robinson

2. “(1) Whether the nature of defendant’s violation was trivial or substantial. The trial court should consider when the witness first became known to defense counsel. (2) How vital the potential witness’ testimony is to the defendant’s case. The trial court should determine the significance of the proffered testimony to the defense. Is the testimony relevant and material to the defense or merely cumulative? (3) The nature of the prejudice to the State. Does the violation have a deleterious impact on the case prepared by the State? (4) Whether less stringent sanctions are appropriate and effective to protect the interests of both the defendant and the State. (5) Whether the State will be unduly surprised and prejudiced by the inclusion of the witness’ testimony despite the available and reasonable alternative sanctions ... which can mitigate prejudice to the State by permitting the State to interview the witnesses and conduct further investigation, if necessary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Wright v. Miller

3. “[b]ecause of the fact-sensitive nature of discovery issues, a trial court's ruling is cloaked with a strong presumption of correctness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Martin Richard Himsel, Janet Himsel, Robert Lannon, and Susan Lannon v. Indiana Pork Producers Association and Livestock Engineering Solutions