199 Wis. 2d 721 - State v. Cummings’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 211 Wis. 2d 194 - State v. Klessig (1997), 218 Wis. 2d 180 - State v. Phillips (1998)
2 federal appellate · 71 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 Strickland v. Washington · Franks v. Delaware · Illinois v. Allen · Jones v. Barnes · Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a person complains to a judge that he or she has reason to believe that a crime has been committed within his or her jurisdiction, the judge shall examine the complainant under oath and any witnesses produced by him or her. ... If it appears probable from the testimony given that a crime has been committed and who committed it, the complaint may be reduced to writing and signed and verified; and thereupon a warrant shall issue for the arrest of the accused.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A grant of jurisdiction by its very nature includes those powers necessary to fulfill the jurisdictional mandate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is only when the John Doe is used to gather evidence specifically relating to the crime for which the defendant is being tried that an abuse of the procedure occurs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Noble · State v. Noble
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.