201 Wis. 2d 121 - State v. Mueller’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably State v. Andresen (2001), State v. Dabney (2003)
2 federal appellate · 21 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Spies v. United States · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Ratzlaf et Ux United States · Hughey v. United States · Aaron v. Securities & Exchange Commission
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security in this state, directly or indirectly: (2) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading!;.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Wilful ... means only that the defendant knowingly committed the act. charged. Wilful does not mean that the defendant had an intent to defraud or that the defendant had knowledge that the law was being violated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mueller v. Sullivan“[A]n arrest warrant issues when it is signed by a judge with intent that it be executed and the warrant leaves the possession of the judge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dabney
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.