21 Wis. 2d 562 - Fields v. Creek’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The content of the arguments by counsel to the jury is a matter resting in the discretion of the trial court. It is only when the trial court fails in its responsibility that this court will intrude. Masterson v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (1899), 102 Wis. 571 , 78 N. W. 757 . It is difficult to lay down precise standards which will successfully separate fair argument from unfair argument. We are not prepared to strike down all colorful, forensic thrusts before the jury. Oral argument to the jury need not be confined to the sterile reiteration of the testimony which was presented. Counsel have the right to analyze and exhort. As long ago as 1878, this court recognized that counsel in argument should be given ‘the very fullest freedom of speech.’ Brown v. Swineford (1878), 44 Wis. 282, 293 . “There is a point when enthusiastic advocacy becomes an appeal to prejudice. It is the burden of the trial court to make sure the arguments do not exceed the bounds of fairness.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 44 Wis. 2d 75 - State v. Richardson · 157 Wis. 2d 332 - Lievrouw v. Roth