179 Wis. 2d 346 - State v. Maday’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Brown County v. Shannon R. (2005), State v. Schaefer (2008)
4 federal appellate · 47 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 Chambers v. Mississippi · United States v. Nixon · Ake v. Oklahoma · United States v. Nobles · 147 Wis. 2d 240 - State v. Jensen
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the state manifests an intent during its case-in-chief to present testimony of one or more experts, who have personally examined a victim of an alleged sexual assault, and will testify that the victim's behavior is consistent with the behaviors of other victims of sexual assault, a defendant may request a psychological examination of the victim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Anderson · State v. Rizzo“[a] defendant who is prevented from presenting testimony from an examining expert when the state is able to present such testimony is deprived of a level playing field.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“This argument ignores the inherent qualitative differences between testimony from an examining expert and a nonexamining expert. ... An expert who has personally examined a victim is in a better position to render an opinion than is an expert who has not done so____ . . . Psychological testimony is often disputed and the value of an expert’s opinion depends in large part upon the basis for that opinion. . . . Because the State in this case had the exclusive right to examine [the victim], the credibility of its expert was elevated above that of any nonexamining expert defendant could call. Thus, we find it is fundamentally unfair that the State was able to present the testimony of an examining expert but the defendant was limited to the testimony of a nonexamining expert.”
3 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.