State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 2015
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · California v. Trombetta · 124 Wis. 2d 525 - State v. Dyess · 115 Wis. 2d 334 - State v. Pharr · 216 Wis. 2d 768 - State v. Sullivan
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.. . . [E]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. This subsection does not exclude the evidence when offered for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This fact provided Davis with the opportunity to attempt to prove that someone else, someone who looks a great deal like Davis, was burglarizing and robbing homes within the same general time frame.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]his is not a situation where someone accused of a crime makes a general claim that someone else must have done it.”
1 later decision 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.