State v. Seefeldt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “¶ 23. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution protect a criminal defendant from being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. The underlying purpose for this protection against double jeopardy is to prevent the State from using its resources and power to make repeated attempts to convict a person for the same offense. State v. Seefeldt, 2003 WI 47, ¶ 15 , 261 Wis. 2d 383 , 661 N.W.2d 822 .”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 383 Wis. 2d 785 - State v. Schmidt-Sharkey · 383 Wis. 2d 784 - State v. Flint

2. “[s]ound discretion is not exercised when the circuit court fails to consider the facts of record under the relevant law, bases its conclusion on an error of law or does not reason its way to a rational conclusion.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 385 Wis. 2d 847 - State v. Rave · State v. Moeck

3. “A circuit court's exercise of discretion in ordering a mistrial is accorded a level of deference that varies depending on the particular facts of the case. Regardless of the level of deference to be applied, an appellate court must, at a minimum, satisfy itself that the circuit court exercised sound discretion in ordering a mistrial.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 385 Wis. 2d 847 - State v. Rave · State v. Moeck