Awadelkariem v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Paulson v. State (2000), State v. Cullen (2006)
56 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Clewis v. State · Malik v. State · Holloway v. United States · 39 Cal. 2d 41 - In Re Levi · Garrett 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen older precedent conflicts with a newer decision that is found to be more soundly reasoned, we may resolve the inconsistency in favor of the more soundly reasoned decision.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nevertheless, ... [we] conclude that a time limitation must exist on the power to rescind a new trial order. The appellate rules give a trial court 75 days after judgment is imposed or suspended in open court to rule upon a motion for new trial.[ 2 ] We hold that an order granting or denying a motion for new trial may be freely rescinded so long as such action occurs within the 75 days provided by the rules (i.e., current Rule 21.8(a) & (c)); to the extent that Matthews and its progeny were held to apply during this time period, they are overruled. However, after the 75 day period expires, an order granting or denying a new trial becomes “final,” and Matthews and its progeny control.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Moore · Stepan v. State“In Matthews it appears that the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for new trial, then attempted to set aside its order because it had been under a “misapprehension of the evidence complained of by defendant in his motion for new trial.” The instant case is distinguishable. The court in this case did not knowingly grant the motion for new trial and then decide to retract its decision. The court was not even aware that it was granting a motion for new trial when it signed the order. No hearing was held in this case; no evidence was adduced from which the court could have knowingly granted a new trial. The signing of an order form is not all there is to granting a new trial. Further, the court’s error in this case does not strike us as a judicial error, as certainly was the case in Matthews . The error here is more akin to clerical error, which can be corrected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stepan 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.