Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 WIAPP 275 - State v. Head

State v. Head’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
September 2001
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 107 Wis. 2d 400 - Loy v. Bunderson · 124 Wis. 2d 525 - State v. Dyess · 110 Wis. 2d 485 - State v. Felton · 228 Wis. 2d 106 - Peace Ex Rel. Lerner v. Northwestern National Insurance · State v. Hoyt

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

  1. “The law of self-defense allows the defendant to threaten or intentionally use force against another only if: • the defendant believed that there was an actual or imminent unlawful interference with the defendant's person; and, • the defendant believed that the amount of force the defendant used or threatened to use was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference; and • the defendant's beliefs were reasonable. ... In determining whether the defendant's beliefs were reasonable, the standard is what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant's position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense. The reasonableness of the defendant's beliefs must be de termined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of the defendant's acts....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the turbulent and violent character of the victim by proving prior specific instances of violence within his knowledge at the time of the incident.. . . [I]t must be shown that he knew of such violent acts of the victim prior to the affray.”
    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.