Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2009 WIAPP 114 - State v. Bowser

State v. Bowser’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3509

Relies on State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County · Ashcroft Attorney General v. Free Speech Coalition · 102 Wis. 2d 58 - Hartung v. Hartung · 107 Wis. 2d 72 - Bahr v. Bahr · 179 Wis. 2d 346 - State v. Maday

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

  1. “(1) In any criminal proceeding, any property or material that constitutes child pornography (as defined by section 2256 of this title) shall remain in the care, custody, and control of either the Government or the court. (2) (A) Notwithstanding Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court shall deny, in any criminal proceeding, any request by the defendant to copy, photograph, duplicate, or otherwise reproduce any property or material that constitutes child pornography (as defined by section 2256 of this title), so long as the Government makes the property or material reasonably available to the defendant. (B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A), property or material shall be deemed to be reasonably available to the defendant if the Government provides ample opportunity for inspection, viewing, and examination at a Government facility of the property or material by the defendant, his or her attorney, and any individual the defendant may seek to qualify to furnish expert testimony at trial. [ 18 U.S.C.A. § 3509 (m).]”
    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.