192 Wis. 2d 78 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2010
24 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Gault · Colorado v. Connelly · Kirby v. Illinois
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.
“The Supremacy Clause dictates that the Davis interpretation of the federal constitution is binding on all courts of this state. Thus, although the majority neglects to acknowledge it, Walkowiak has been superseded by Davis .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'desire to deal with the police only through counsel.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. The following are affirmative defenses to prosecution under this section which mitigate the offense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide under s. 940.05: .... (b) Unnecessary defensive force. Death was caused because the actor believed he or she or another was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the force used was necessary to defend the endangered person, if either belief was unreasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Doty
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.