115 Wis. 2d 334 - State v. Pharr’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 344 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 349 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 150 Wis. 2d 688 - State v. Blalock (1989), 216 Wis. 2d 768 - State v. Sullivan (1998)
1 federal appellate · 344 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 Desist v. United States · 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary v. State · 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State · United States v. Harris · 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 349 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'in accordance with accepted legal standards and in accordance with the facts of record.'”
48 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Is the other acts evidence offered for an acceptable purpose under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 904.04(2), such as establishing motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident? (2) Is the other acts evidence relevant, considering the two facets of relevance set forth in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 904.01? The first consideration in assessing relevance is whether the other acts evidence relates to a fact or proposition that is of consequence to the determination of the action. The second consideration in assessing relevance is whether the evidence has probative value, that is, whether the other acts evidence has a tendency to make the consequential fact or proposition more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. (3) Is the probative value of the other acts evidence substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence? See Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 904.03.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. This subsection does not exclude the evidence when offered for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
10 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.