State v. Hart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “may have resulted in a different judgment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennessee · Johnson v. State

2. “there is no question that the petitioner’s motion, filed approximately thirty-two years after the judgment was final in the trial court, was clearly outside the statute of limitations. However, the defendant contends that due process requires that the statute of limitations for filing her Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis be tolled. This court finds no due process concerns which would entitle petitioner to relief.... Moreover, this court finds that coram nobis is not the appropriate avenue to address the alleged constitutional violations relating to juror misconduct.... Having found that the defendant has failed to file within the applicable statute of limitations and having further found that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that her interest in presenting her claims is outweighed by the government’s interest in preventing litigation of stale claims, it is not necessary for this court to further examine the merits of the petitioner’s allegations. However, this court notes that [the] petition seems to be fundamentally flawed under the standards set forth by Hart . Initially, it is unclear whether or not the statement of Nash allegedly made to Box were unknown to the defense during the original trial.... Hart also requires the petitioner to demonstrate that she was without fault in failing to present the claims. This court finds it unlikely that it was the intention of our Supreme Court to reward defendants, who due to their own criminal actions, fail to present ti”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Freshwater v. State

3. “[t]he relief obtainable by this proceeding shall be confined to errors dehors the record and to matters that were not or could not have been litigated on the trial of the case, on a motion for a new trial, on appeal in the nature of a writ of error, on writ of error, or in a habeas corpus proceeding. Upon a showing by the defendant that the defendant was without fault in failing to present certain evidence at the proper time, a writ of error coram nobis will he for subsequently or newly discovered evidence relating to matters which were litigated at the trial if the judge determines that such evidence may have resulted in a different judgment, had it been presented at the trial. The issue shall be tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and if the decision be in favor of the petitioner, the judgment complained of shall be set aside and the defendant shall be granted a new trial in that cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Freshwater v. State