State v. Blankenship’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably State v. Fisher (1984), State v. Axley (1982)
63 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 State v. Pulliam · State v. Villavicencio · State v. Mangrum · Everett v. State · Indian Fred 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * ‘the new evidence must be such as would have probably resulted in the acquittal of the accused had it been produced at the trial, and it is therefore necessary that it shall appear to the court hearing the motion that it is probably true. The witness who is expected to testify must appear to the court to be credible. His credibility is to be determined by the judge hearing the motion.”’ (Emphasis added.) 99 Ariz. at 65 , 406 P.2d at 732 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mason · State v. Turner““They grabbed Edwards, pushed him to the ground, and beat him. The evidence in the instant case is sufficient to support a verdict for assault with intent to commit a felony—that felony being aggravated assault. This is sufficient, and the contention of the appellants that there was no showing of infliction of serious bodily injury or a showing that means were used calculated to inflict great bodily injury, is unfounded.” State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 67 , 406 P.2d 729, 733 (1965).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““On an appeal from an order denying a new trial to the defendant in a criminal case, the matter is largely one of discretion with the trial court, and the denial will not be grounds for reversal unless it appears affirmatively that the court abused its discretion, and acted arbitrarily.” State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 64 , 406 P.2d 729 . See also State v. Turner, 92 Ariz. 214 , 375 P.2d 567 ; State v. Bogard, 88 Ariz. 244 , 354 P.2d 862 ; State v. Love, 77 Ariz. 46 , 266 P.2d 1079 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Turner
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.