State v. Seefeldt’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Arizona v. Washington · 113 Wis. 2d 61 - Sweet v. Berge · 216 Wis. 2d 768 - State v. Sullivan · 160 Wis. 2d 722 - State v. Kuntz
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. This subsection does not exclude the evidence when offered for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Seefeldt“Now, the evidence is also going to show that the second car was being driven by this Michelle, Brian's girlfriend. Now, at that point. .. the officers exit the car. Apparently they had their guns drawn on this vehicle. Michelle Bart had, at that time, I believe, 15 warrants for her arrest that were out there from around the state of Wisconsin, mostly from writing bad checks in places.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Seefeldt“She is a person who you will hear about and obviously recognize, in terms of her dress, had been held accountable for her actions. She will tell you that she saw Mr. Seefeldt sell cocaine. She will tell you that she saw Mr. Seefeldt bring five pounds of marijuana to this community.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Seefeldt
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.