State v. Dunlap’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably State v. Carter (2010), State v. Miller (2002)
4 federal appellate · 30 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 155 Wis. 2d 633 - State v. Pulizzano · United States v. Winston · 147 Wis. 2d 240 - State v. Jensen · United States v. Bolin · 146 Wis. 2d 315 - State v. Robinson
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“as the framework for our analysis. The curative admissibility doctrine is applied when one party accidentally or purposefully takes advantage of a piece of evidence that would normally be inadmissible. Under such circumstances, the court may allow the opposing party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence if it is required by the concept of fundamental fairness to prevent unfair prejudice. State v. Dunlap, 2002 WI 19, ¶14 , 250 Wis. 2d 466 , 640 N.W.2d 112 (citations omitted). As our colleague has explained,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“in Wisconsin, when one party accidentally . .. takes advantage of a piece of evidence that is otherwise inadmissible, the court may, in its discretion, allow the opposing party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence if it is required by the concept of fundamental fairness to cure some unfair prejudice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'to counteract outdated beliefs that a complainant's sexual past could shed light on the truthfulness of the sexual assault allegations.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ringer · State v. Carter
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.