Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 202 Wis. 2d 29 - State v. McCall

202 Wis. 2d 29 - State v. McCall’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2023

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

601996200020102020decided

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

Relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · 74 Wis. 2d 425 - State v. Lenarchick · 161 Wis. 2d 324 - State v. Lindh

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

  1. “that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment prevents a trial judge from imposing any limits on defense counsel's inquiry into the potential bias of a prosecution witness. On the contrary, trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “The exposure of a witness's motivation in testifying represents 'a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.'”
    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.