179 Wis. 2d 484 - State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably State v. Popenhagen (2008), 184 Wis. 2d 324 - State v. Johnson (1994)
56 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 Estelle v. McGuire · Desist v. United States · 115 Wis. 2d 334 - State v. Pharr · 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State · 90 Wis. 2d 97 - Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Securities Corp.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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“Where the trial court fails to adequately explain the reasons for its decision, we will independently review the record to determine whether it provides a reasonable basis for the trial court's discretionary ruling.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A court exercises discretion when it considers the facts of record and reasons its way to a rational, legally sound conclusion. It is "a process of reasoning" in which the facts and applicable law are considered in arriving at "a conclusion based on logic and founded on proper legal standards." Thus, to determine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in a particular matter, we look first to the court's on-the-record explanation of the reasons underlying its decision. And where the record shows that the court looked to and considered the facts of the case and reasoned its way to a conclusion that is (a) one a reasonable judge could reach and (b) consistent with applicable law, we will affirm the decision even if it is not one with which we ourselves would agree. It need not be a lengthy process. While reasons must be stated, they need not be exhaustive. It is enough that they indicate to the reviewing court that the trial court "undert[ook] a reasonable inquiry and examination of the facts" and "the record shows that there is a reasonable basis for the . . . court's determination." Indeed, "[bjecause the exercise of discretion is so essential to the trial court's functioning, we generally look for reasons to sustain discretionary decisions."”
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.