116 Wis. 2d 477 - State v. Strege’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 128 Wis. 2d 110 - State v. Holt (1985), 144 Wis. 2d 388 - State v. Schumacher (1988)
6 federal appellate · 22 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 State v. Goodman · 106 Wis. 2d 368 - State v. Alles · 115 Wis. 2d 220 - State Ex Rel. La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Court for La Crosse County · 46 Wis. 2d 328 - State v. Guiden · State v. Payton
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A bald statement that the defendant had been drinking or was drunk is insufficient--insufficient not because it falls short of the quantum of evidence necessary, but because it is not evidence of the right thing. In order to merit an intoxication instruction ... the defendant must point to some evidence of mental impairment due to the consumption of intoxicants sufficient to negate the existence of the [specific] intent[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In order to place intoxication in issue in a given case, it will be necessary for the defendant to come forward with some evidence of his impaired condition.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The ‘intoxicated or drugged condition’ to which the statute refers is not the condition of alcohol-induced mean descence or being well-lit that lowers the threshold of inhibitions or stirs the impulse to criminal adventures. It is that degree of complete drunkenness which makes a person incapable of forming intent to perform an act or commit a crime.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burrus v. Young
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.