Huster v. Wynn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a general rule that, before a new trial will be granted on the grounds of newly discovered evidence, it must .be made to affirmatively appear that the new evidence would be sufficient to probably change the verdict, and produce a different result. Morgan v. Bell, 41 Kan. 345 , 21 Pac. 255 ; Clark v. Norman, 24 Kan. 515 ; State v. Smith, 35 Kan. 618 , 11 Pac. 908 ; Carson v. Henderson, 34 Kan. 404 , 8 Pac. 727 ; Sexton v. Lamb, 27 Kan. 432 ; State v. Stickney, 53 Kan. 308 , 36 Pac. 714 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lookabaugh v. Bowmaker

2. ““The motion for new trial was not supported by the affidavits of the witnesses to the facts which it was claimed were in the nature of newly discovered evidence. The affidavits of the newly discovered witnesses should be produced, or their absence accounted for. State v. Kellerman, 14 Kan. 135 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eskridge v. Taylor

3. ““This evidence is in the nature of impeaching evidence, and it is generally held that a new trial will not be granted for the purpose of introducing impeaching evidence. (Parker v. Bates, 29 Kan. 597 ; Lee v. Birmingham, 39 Kan. 320 , 18 Pac. 218 .]””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lookabaugh v. Bowmaker