Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2005 WI 104 - State v. Smith

State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably State v. Tramell E. Starks (2013), 341 Wis. 2d 119 - Marquez v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2012)

28 state decisions

160200520102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 28 U.S.C. § 1738

Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Gaudin · United States v. Morton · 189 Wis. 2d 541 - Northern States Power Co. v. Bugher · Martindale v. Ripp

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

  1. “A court's 'competency,' as the term is understood in Wisconsin, is not jurisdictional at all, but instead, is defined as 'the power of a court to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction' in a particular case.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “refers to the power of a court to decide certain types of actions.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The requirements of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.