157 Wis. 2d 700 - State v. Frambs’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2017
2 district · 10 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 · Bourjaily v. United States · United States v. Thevis · United States v. Carlson · United States v. Mastrangelo
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no evidence that the Supreme Court intended the protection of the confrontation clause to be available to a defendant in . . . pretrial situations.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Preliminary questions concerning [the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or] the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the judge, subject to sub. (2) and [Wis. Stat. §§] 971.31(11) and 972.11(2). In making the determination the judge is bound by the rules of evidence only with respect to privileges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Frambs had no confrontation clause rights as to hearsay declarants at this motion hearing, and the trial court, at its discretion, could rely on hearsay testimony in making its ruling.”
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.