Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 Wis. 2d 61 - State v. Rutchik

116 Wis. 2d 61 - State v. Rutchik’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
7
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 124 Wis. 2d 628 - State v. Pitsch (1985), 160 Wis. 2d 722 - State v. Kuntz (1991)

59 state decisions

2401984199020002010decided

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 · Liotta v. National Forge Co. · 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State · 99 Wis. 2d 269 - Barrera v. State · United States v. Brunson

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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS. 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.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) General rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime or adjudicated delinquent is admissible. The party cross-examining the witness is not concluded by the witness's answer. (2) Exclusion. Evidence of a conviction of a crime or an adjudication of delinquency may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. (3) Admissibility of conviction or adjudication. No question inquiring with respect to a conviction of a crime or an adjudication of delinquency, nor introduction of evidence with respect thereto, shall be permitted until the judge determines pursuant to s. 901.04 whether the evidence should be excluded. [ 4 ]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “nearness in time, place and circumstances to the alleged crime or element sought to be proved.”
    2 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.