2002 WI App 198 - State v. Barreau’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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

1. “). ¶ 21. We conclude that Janis's testimony was inadmissible under part two of the Sullivan test. However, even if the testimony were relevant, we conclude that it would be inadmissible because it also fails under the third part of the Sullivan test. C. Does the clanger of unfair prejudice substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence ¶ 22. The third prong of the Sullivan test requires courts to determine whether under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 904.03 the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McGowan

2. “Relevance under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 904.01 has two components; the evidence must relate to some fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action, and it must have some tendency to make that fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McGowan

3. “incident's nearness in time, place, and circumstances to the alleged crime or the fact or proposition sought to be proved. The greater the similarity, complexity and distinctiveness of the events, the stronger is the case for the admission of the other acts evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McGowan