Birmingham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 1982
1 federal appellate · 20 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
Relies on Harrigan v. Gilchrist · Paulson v. State · Topolewski v. State · Hardtke v. State · Rozek v. Redzinski
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court, before finding the defendant guilty, stated that it considered some of the testimony irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and then said: `Now, I will decide this case absolutely on the relevant testimony in the case and after having cut out so to speak all the irrelevant testimony that has been admitted. Now, on the facts in this case, I find the defendant guilty.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In a case tried by the court the admission of improper evidence is to be regarded on appeal as having been harmless, unless it clearly appears that but therefor the finding would probably have been different.” Birmingham v. State (1938), 228 Wis. 448, 454 , 279 N. W. 15 , quoting from Topolewski v. State (1906), 130 Wis. 244 , 109 N. W. 1037 .”
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.