109 Wis. 2d 96 - State v. Walberg’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably 185 Wis. 2d 168 - State v. Escalona-Naranjo (1994), Walberg v. Israel (1985)
2 federal appellate · 81 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 Chapman v. State of California · Addington v. Texas · Tumey v. State of Ohio · Kirchberg v. Feenstra · 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There are two different burdens of proof that apply in civil actions: fair preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence. The fair preponderance standard applies in ordinary civil actions. The clear and convincing standard applies in cases where public policy requires a higher standard of proof than in the ordinary civil action. This so-called middle burden of proof has been required in such cases as fraud, undue influence, and prosecutions of civil ordinance violations which are also crimes under state law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rationale behind the use of this higher standard of proof is that once the guilty plea is entered the presumption of innocence is no longer applicable, and when the record on its face shows that the defendant was afforded constitutional safeguards, the defendant should bear the heavier burden of showing that his plea should be vacated. Once the defendant waives his constitutional rights and enters a guilty plea, the state's interest in finality of convictions requires a high standard of proof to disturb that plea.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hen a judge determines that, for any reason, he or she cannot, or it appears he or she cannot, act in an impartial manner.”
4 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.