218 Wis. 2d 350 - State v. Hobson’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably State v. Young (2006), State v. Rachel (2002)
2 federal appellate · 27 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Brown v. Illinois · Gerstein v. Pugh · United States v. Di Re · Coleman v. Alabama · County of Riverside v. McLaughlin
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.
“Common law continued in force. Such parts of the common law as are now in force in the territory of Wisconsin, not inconsistent with this constitution, shall be and continue part of the law of this state until altered or suspended by the legislature.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“forcibly resist an unlawful arrest in the absence of unreasonable force.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defense of others is an issue in this case. The law of defense of others allows a person to threaten or intentionally use force to defend another under certain circumstances. The state must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting lawfully in defense of others. The law allows the defendant to act in defense of others only if the defendant believed that there was an actual or imminent unlawful interference with the person of (name of third person), believed that (name of third person) was entitled to use or to threaten to use force in self-defense, and believed that the amount of force used or threatened by the defendant was necessary for the protection of (name of third person). The defendant may intentionally use or threaten force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (name of third person). In addition, the defendant's beliefs must have been reasonable. A belief may be reasonable, even though mistaken. In determining whether the defendant's beliefs were reasonable!,] the standard is what a person of Cordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant's position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense. The reasonableness of the defendant's beliefs must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of his acts and not from the ”
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.