Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 WIAPP 140 - State v. Norfleet

State v. Norfleet’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 2003
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Roviaro v. United States · 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary v. State · 108 Wis. 2d 112 - State v. Outlaw · 141 Wis. 2d 412 - State v. Larsen · Becker Electric, Inc. v. City of Bismarck

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. “Identity of informer. (1) Rule of Privilege. The federal government or a state or subdivision thereof has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a person who has furnished information relating to or assisting in an investigation of a possible violation of law to a law enforcement officer or member of a legislative committee or its staff conducting an investigation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Discretion is not synonymous with decision-making. Rathei the term contemplates a process of reasoning. This process must depend on facts that are of record or that are reasonably derived by inference from the record and a conclusion based on a logical rationale founded upon proper legal standards.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the reality that informers are an important aspect of law enforcement and that the anonymity of informers is necessary for their effective use.”
    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.