State v. Loebach’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 155 Wis. 2d 633 - State v. Pulizzano (1990), State v. Saldana (1982)
76 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Michelson v. United States · Leary v. United States · State v. Spreigl · State v. Loss · State v. Adams
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] defendant claiming error in the trial court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error * * *. A reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury to convict.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Glidden · State v. Harvey“First, there is the possibility that the jury will convict a defendant in order to penalize him for his past misdeeds or simply because he is an undesirable person. Second, there is the danger that a jury will overvalue the character evidence in assessing the guilt for the crime charged. Finally, it is unfair to require an accused to be prepared not only to defend against immediate charges, but also to disprove or explain his personality or prior actions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Aguayo · State v. Nylund“"Courts that follow the common-law tradition almost unanimously have come to disallow resort by the prosecution to any kind of evidence of a defendant's evil character to establish a probability of his guilt. Not that the law invests the defendant with a presumption of good character... but it simply closes the whole matter of character, disposition and reputation on the prosecution's case-in-chief.... The overriding policy of excluding such evidence, despite its admitted probative value, is the practical experience that its disallowance tends to prevent confusion of issues, unfair surprise and undue prejudice." Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 , 69 S.Ct. 213 , 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Lucero
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.