105 Wis. 2d 553 - State v. Stanfield’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2004 · most notably 153 Wis. 2d 493 - State v. Poellinger (1990), 124 Wis. 2d 681 - State v. Wyss (1985)
42 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 Watt v. Alaska · 96 Wis. 2d 630 - State v. Burkman · 79 Wis. 2d 473 - State v. Collova · 70 Wis. 2d 22 - Peters v. State · 52 Wis. 2d 71 - Hawpetoss 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The test is not whether this court is convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether this court can conclude that the trier of fact could, acting reasonably, be convinced to the required degree of certitude by the evidence which it had a right to believe and accept as true. Reversal is only required when the evidence considered most favorably to the state and the conviction is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of facts acting reasonably could be convinced to that degree of certitude which the law defines as ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ (citations omitted).” Id. at 564 , quoting State v. Burkman, 96 Wis. 2d 630, 643 , 292 N.W.2d 641 (1980).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“" 948.02 Mistreating animals. No person may treat any animal, whether belonging to himself or another, in a cruel manner. This section does not prohibit bona fide experiments carried on for scientific research or normal and accepted veterinary practices."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[W]hen circumstantial evidence is relied upon, this evidence must be sufficiently strong to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This does not mean that, if any of the evidence brought forth at trial suggests innocence, the jury cannot find the defendant guilty. The function of the jury is to decide which evidence is credible and which is not, and how conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved. The jury can thus, within the bounds of reason, reject testimony suggestive of innocence. The rule that the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable theory of innocence refers to the evidence which the jury could have believed and relied upon to support its verdict.” Peters v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 22, 34 , 233 N.W.2d 420 (1975). (Footnotes omitted.)”
1 later decision 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.