State v. Carli’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2008
1 federal appellate · 6 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 Williams v. People of State of New York · State v. Sawyer · State Ex Rel. Volden v. Haas · Kilkelly v. State · Birker 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In relying upon the right of confrontation, defendant overlooks the distinction between the determination of guilt and the exercise of the court’s discretion as to probation or extent of punishment. The right ‘to meet the witnesses face to face’ guaranteed by sec. 7, art. I, Wis. Const., and the standards of fair trial embraced within the concept of due process of law in the Fourteenth amendment, U. S. Const., must be fully respected where the question for consideration is the guilt or innocence of the accused. Once the defendant has been found guilty, he is ‘subject to whatever loss of liberty the legislature has prescribed for his crime.’ State ex rel. Volden v. Haas (1953), 264 Wis. 127, 130 , 58 N. W. (2d) 577 . That consideration by the court of a confidential report of presentence investigation does not violate a defendant’s constitutional rights was settled for Wisconsin in the Volden Case and settled with respect to the due-process clause in Williams v. New York (1949), 337 U. S. 241 , 69 Sup. Ct. 1079, 93 L. Ed. 1337 .” State v. Carli (1957), 2 Wis. 2d 429 , 440b, 86 N. W. 2d 434 , 87 N. W. 2d 830 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In order to prove mayhem, as charged in the first count, the state must prove that [the] defendant acted with malicious intent to maim or disfigure and that he cut or tore off Garber's ear. We are satisfied that the cutting or tearing off of an ear, or even the portion disclosed by the evidence here, constitutes great bodily harm....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Quintana
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.