Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 192 Wis. 2d 674 - State v. Peters

192 Wis. 2d 674 - State v. Peters’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
4
states following
February 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably 228 Wis. 2d 357 - Tanner v. Shoupe (1999), 294 N.J. Super. 267 - State v. Marcus (1996)

1 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

260199520002010decided

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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Washington v. Davis · Frye v. United States · 115 Wis. 2d 334 - State v. Pharr · 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State

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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Testimony by experts. If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Once the relevancy of the evidence is established and the witness is qualified as ah expert, the reliability of the evidence is a weight and credibility issue for the fact finder and any reliability challenges must be made through cross-examination or by other means of impeachment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “as an expert. In a state such as Wisconsin, where substantially unlimited cross-examination is permitted, the underlying theory or principle on which admissibility is based can be attacked by cross-examination or by other types of impeachment. Walstad, 119 Wis. 2d at 518-519 , 351 N.W.2d at 487 . See also State v. Peters, 192 Wis. 2d 674, 690 , 534 N.W.2d 867, 873 (Ct. App. 1995) (”
    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.