101 Wis. 2d 441 - State v. Baldwin’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Schad v. Arizona (1991), Vollmer v. Luety (1990)
10 federal appellate · 113 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Turner v. United States · Apodaca v. Oregon · 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary 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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“compelling circumstances.” This is made clear by the court’s use of that term: It is true as a general rule that failure to object to a jury instruction in timely fashion constitutes a waiver of the objection. Kutchera v. State, 69 Wis. 2d 534, 551 , 230 N.W.2d 750 (1975); State v. Cydzik, 60 Wis. 2d 683, 694 , 211 N.W.2d 241 (1973); State v. Schenk, 53 Wis. 2d 327, 333 , 193 N.W.2d 26 (1972).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t is not difficult to imagine situations where the line between 'threat’ and 'use’ blurs, even where a jury, may be in agreement as to precisely what a defendant did. The proper application of the Gip-son rationale is not dependent upon the conceptual dissimilarity, but rather the conceptual similarity of the conduct. In Holland we said '[t]he Gipson logic requires the jury to agree on the factual theory or”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`A trial judge may, but he need not, take into consideration such expressions [refusals to acknowledge guilt] as indicative of the likelihood that the rehabilitory process hoped for in the criminal law has commenced; but where, as here, the defendant refused to admit his guilt, that fact alone cannot be used to justify incarceration rather than probation.' Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.