State v. Wiley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 65 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. “* * * No fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The public’s interest in protecting the flow of information must be balanced against the individual’s right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony and other relevant factors. * * * We have considered all of the circumstances of this case and have concluded that the trial court’s refusal to order disclosure was neither contrary to the decisions of this court nor a denial of due process.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Werber · State v. Rambahal

2. “Defendant’s next objections go to the admission of welfare records and testimony of welfare officials which were used to show that defendant had given his address as 4717 Fourth Avenue South. Defendant first argues that the welfare information was privileged. In State v. Lender, 266 Minn. 561 , 124 N.W.2d 355 (1963), we concluded that certain communications made to welfare agencies were not privileged, relying on Minn.St. [sic] § 595.-02(5), which provides that the privilege shall apply to public officers "when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure." Although defendant points out that the Department of Public Welfare has promulgated regulations since Lender which limit the disclosure of welfare information (Department of Public Welfare Reg. No. 45), we think the issue in this case is foreclosed by State ex rel. Trimble v. Hedman, 291 Minn. 442 , 192 N.W.2d 432 (1971). In that case, we upheld the admissibility of a telephone conversation between the relator and a police officer who called her ostensibly to discuss welfare payments where the evidence was used solely as a means of identification and not for the purpose of disclosing relator's welfare status. We similarly uphold the use of the welfare records in the instant case where the evidence does not relate to defendant’s welfare status but only to the identification of his residence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Smith

3. ““* * * No one from the Hennepin County Welfare Department testified from his personal knowledge as to the address defendant gave the welfare department. Therefore, it was error to allow the testimony without affording defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the persons who prepared the reports and had firsthand knowledge of their contents.” 295 Minn. 421 , 205 N. W. 2d 675 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State, City of Minneapolis v. Brown