144 Wis. 2d 876 - State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2006
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 Ohio v. Roberts · California v. Green · Mattox v. United States · United States v. Inadi · 124 Wis. 2d 525 - State v. Dyess
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]ecause a videotaped deposition under [this statute] is the functional equivalent of live testimony and ensures the fundamental protections of the confrontation clause..., we conclude that a demonstration of unavailability is not required.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“unless the court or hearing examiner so orders upon a showing that additional testimony by the child is required in the interest of fairness for reasons neither known nor with reasonable diligence discoverable at the time of the deposition by the party seeking to call the child.”
1 later decision 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.