100 Wis. 2d 700 - State v. Copening’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably 146 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Mink (1988), 103 Wis. 2d 564 - State v. Copening (1981)
43 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 Green v. United States · United States v. Jorn · Arizona v. Washington · United States v. Dinitz · Illinois v. Somerville
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Courts of justice [may] discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained ... is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The prosecutor's action must be intentional in the sense of a culpable state of mind in the nature of an awareness that his activity would be prejudicial to the defendant; and (2) the prosecutor's action was designed either to create another chance to convict, that is, to provoke a mistrial in order to get another "kick at the cat" because the first trial is going badly, or to prejudice the defendant's rights to successfully complete the criminal confrontation at the first trial, i.e., to harass him by successive prosecutions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.