110 Wis. 2d 431 - State v. Pepin’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 216 Wis. 2d 61 - State v. Keith (1997), 122 Wis. 2d 465 - State v. Buelow (1984)
36 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 Chambers v. Mississippi · 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary v. State · Exxon Corporation v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue · 81 Wis. 2d 205 - First National Leasing Corp. v. City of Madison · 39 Wis. 2d 754 - State v. Hutnik
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rationale behind all appellate review may be fairly characterized in two extremes: an appellate court will defer in large part to a trial court's determination where the lower court is in a better position to make that determination than is the appellate court; conversely, little or no deference is accorded where the appellate court is as capable of determining the question as is the trial court. Questions of fact are accorded deference because the trial court was present at the reception of evidence and had an opportunity to view the demeanor of witnesses and assess their credibility. Questions of law, on the other hand, are traditionally accorded little or no deference because there is nothing intrinsic to their determination which gives the trial court any advantage over an appellate court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We note that this against-interest statement is documentary; that it was made is undisputed; its maker chose not to testify and so no demeanor evidence exists. The trial court would be in no better position to determine this question of law than are we.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jimmie R.R.
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.