State v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2024
18 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 189 Wis. 2d 541 - Northern States Power Co. v. Bugher · 211 Wis. 2d 397 - State v. Setagord · 173 Wis. 2d 681 - Michelle T. Ex Rel. Sumpter v. Crozier · 113 Wis. 2d 306 - DePratt v. West Bend Mutual Insurance · 85 Wis. 2d 36 - State v. Kenyon
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Judicial estopped is a doctrine that is aimed at preventing a party from manipulating the judiciary as an institution by asserting a position in a legal proceeding and then taking an inconsistent position. The doctrine requires a showing that: (1) a party against whom estoppel is sought presents a later position that is "clearly inconsistent" with the earlier position; (2) the facts at issue are the same in both cases; and (3) the party to be estopped convinced the first court to adopt its position. Whether these elements are met is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo; whether to apply the doctrine if the elements are met is a matter for the trial court's discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. White
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.