119 Wis. 2d 461 - State v. Disch’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably 152 Wis. 2d 113 - State v. McManus (1989), 217 Wis. 2d 429 - State v. Busch (1998)
50 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Lisenba v. People of State of California · United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal · United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. Turner
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] method or process for testing which is expressly authorized by statute is entitled to a prima facie presumption of correctness of purpose. In such a case, all that needs to be proved is that the method was followed. A scientific or medical method not recognized as acceptable in the scientific or medical discipline as accurate does not enjoy the presumption of accuracy, i.e., lie-detector tests. But tests by recognized methods need not be proved for reliability in every case of violation. Examples, speedometer, breathalyzer, radar. These methods of measurement carry a prima facie presumption of accuracy. Whether the test was properly conducted or the instruments used were in good working order is a matter of defense. The administration of law would be seriously frustrated if the validity of basic and everyday accepted tests had to be a matter of evidence in every case in the first instance. [Citations omitted.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The result of a chemical test, although admissible, is open to rebuttal by the defendant, as a matter of defense, to adduce countervailing evidence of the unreliability or inaccuracy of the result. It is at this stage, after admission, that the defendant may attack the weight and credibility to be given the test.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“No duty devolves upon the district attorney to preserve or maintain a quantity of a blood sample in order that a defendant may retest the blood .. . nor does due process require the retention and production of the sample.”
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.