State v. Fischer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 state decisions

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

1. “questions of the weight and reliability of relevant evidence [were] matters for the trier of fact.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Burris · Braylon Seifert v. Kay M. Balink, M.D.

2. “Preliminary breath screening test. If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the person is violating or has violated s. 346.63(1) or (2m) or a local ordinance in conformity therewith, or s. 346.63(2) or (6) or 940.25 or s. 940.09 where the offense involved the use of a vehicle, or if the officer detects any presence of alcohol, a controlled substance, controlled substance analog or other drug, or a combination thereof, on a person driving or operating or on duty time with respect to a commercial motor vehicle or has reason to believe that the person is violating or has violated s. 346.63(7) or a local ordinance in conformity therewith, the officer, prior to an arrest, may request the person to provide a sample of his or her breath for a preliminary breath screening test using a device approved by the department for this purpose. The result of this preliminary breath screening test may be used by the law enforcement officer for the purpose of deciding whether or not the person shall be arrested for a violation of s. 346.63(1), (2m), (5) or (7) or a local ordinance in conformity therewith, or s. 346.63(2) or (6), 940.09(1) or 940.25 and whether or not to require or request chemical tests as authorized under s. 343.305(3). The result of the preliminary breath screening test shall not be admissible in any action or proceeding except to show probable cause for an arrest, if the arrest is challenged, or to prove that a chemical test was properly required or re”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 344 Wis. 2d 483 - State v. Felton · 355 Wis. 2d 85 - State v. Luis M. Rocha-Mayo

3. “we construe sections on the same subject matter to harmonize the provisions and to give each full force and effect,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 382 Wis. 2d 145 - Baldwin v. Milwaukee Cnty. · State v. Gilbert