State v. Walters’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably State v. Passmore (2010), State v. Kleser (2010)
24 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 107 Wis. 2d 400 - Loy v. Bunderson · 115 Wis. 2d 334 - State v. Pharr · 102 Wis. 2d 58 - Hartung v. Hartung · 39 Wis. 2d 754 - State v. Hutnik · 155 Wis. 2d 633 - State v. Pulizzano
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, used a demonstrated rational process, and reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of the person's character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (a) Character of accused. Evidence of a pertinent trait of the accused's character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Davis’s expert will allegedly testify to the general character traits of sexual offenders, the tests used to determine whether an individual possesses such character traits, his findings on whether Davis possesses such character traits, and, based on these results, the likelihood that Davis committed the sexual assault. Such traits regarding the defendant’s propensity to commit sexual assault are pertinent traits of his character. This evidence relates to a consequential fact, that is, whether the defendant committed sexual misconduct with a child. Further, this evidence has probative value in sexual assault cases, where there is often no neutral witness to the assault and there is seldom any physical evidence implicating the defendant. Such profile evidence may be extremely important to the defense. Such testimony may also be useful to the trier of fact, helping it to determine a fact in issue, that is, whether the defendant committed the crime, by showing circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s innocence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Passmore
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.