Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 243 Wis. 423 - State v. Witte

State v. Witte’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
July 1981
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1981

3 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

7019431950196019701980decided

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 Palko v. State of Connecticut · Kepner v. United States · James Brown v. State of New Jersey · John Mallett v. State of North Carolina · People v. Webb

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

  1. ““This court realizes fully the importance of the protection of the liberty of its citizens, and the injustice of requiring a person to stand trial more than once for the same offense. The state should not be permitted to continually prosecute a citizen in the hope that it may find a jury which will eventually convict him, but it should have the privilege of one legal trial of the defendant for the offense with which he is charged. This can only be accomplished by the correction of material errors in each case, whether it be prejudicial to the state or to the defendant. The single jeopardy of the defendant is not terminated until both the facts and the law applicable thereto are finally determined. Finality is essential, but not when it is acquired contrary to law. Justice occupies the paramount position in American jurisprudence, and changes in procedure are fundamentally based on this fact. The statute in this case does not deprive defendant in error of a fair and impartial legal trial — in fact, it guarantees just this. There is a continuing jeopardy until the case is finally determined.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““All of this points to the end that there shall be but one legal trial, but it is not straining the commonly called double-jeopardy provision of the constitution to say that it is a single and continuing jeopardy until such time as a defendant has had a legal trial for the offense with which he is charged. To say that a defendant has been twice placed in jeopardy because he is required to stand a second trial when the first trial was not according to the law of the jurisdiction in which he was tried is contrary to sound reasoning.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““A writ of error may be taken by and on behalf of the state in criminal cases: . . . “(8) From rulings and decisions adverse to the state upon all questions of law arising on the trial, with the permission of the presiding judge, in the same manner and to the same effect as if taken by the defendant.””
    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.