Wisniewski v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably 6 Ohio St. 2d 14 - State v. Woodards (1966), State v. Ouimette (1972)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 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 Jencks v. United States · Dalehite v. United States · Commonwealth v. Patskin · Commonwealth v. Retkovitz · Bantum 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Rule 16. Discovery And Inspection “Upon motion of a defendant at any time after the filing of the indictment or information, the court may order the Attorney General to permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph designated books, papers, documents, tangible objects, confessions or written statements obtained from or belonging to the defendant or a co-defendant or obtained from others by seizure or by process upon a showing that the items sought may be material to the preparation of his defense and that the request is reasonable. The order shall specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection and of taking the copies and photographs and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hutchins““We think that the refusal of the State to permit defendant’s counsel to examine the police officer prior to calling him to the witness stand was improper. . . On proper application the court would undoubtedly have ordered the witness to discuss any facts within his knowledge relative to the crime which were not privileged. That there is no specific rule of court upon the point is immaterial. The trial court would have the inherent right, in the interest of justice, to overrule the order of the enforcing authorities since such an order was in effect an interference with the subpoena.” (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McDevitt
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.