32 Wis. 2d 503 - State v. Halverson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““These instructions are the product of painstaking effort of an eminently qualified committee of trial judges, lawyers, and legal scholars, designed to accurately state the law and afford a means of uniformity of instructions throughout the state. They are, as stated by counsel, ‘the general instructions used in cases of this kind.’ These uniform instructions are not infallible. However, their content is readily known and if they are considered inaccurate or prejudicial they should be challenged by written requested instructions or at least objection made on the record at the time they are given so that if they are erroneous, correction can be made before the jury arrives at a verdict.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 47 Wis. 2d 695 - Mitchell v. State

2. “"The objection ... was completely inadequate ... it was impossible to determine in what respect any instruction was being challenged. The objection should be specific — it should not only identify the particular instruction or instructions objected to, but should also state what counsel contends is the proper instruction." Id. (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Halverson, 32 Wis. 2d 503, 511 , 145 N.W.2d 739 (1966)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 Wis. 2d 302 - State v. Gomaz

3. ““The main purpose of the statute is clear. It is designed to prevent the disposition of funds for purposes other than lienable claims. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 47 Wis. 2d 621 - Paulsen Lumber, Inc. v. Meyer