Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 358 NW2D 42 - State v. Fader

State v. Fader’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
5
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

1 district · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 144 Wis. 2d 388 - State v. Schumacher (1988), State v. Iniguez (1991)

1 district · 44 state decisions

2101984199020002010decided

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 Bulova Watch Co. v. United States · Homan v. United States · State v. Cermak · State v. Becker · State v. Amos

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

  1. “[T]he word "restitution" connotes restoring or compensating the victim for his loss. If the legislature intended the term to be used more loosely, as a form of punitive damages, it should have used some other word or made its particular use of the word clearer.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “about the propriety of eliciting evidence about the awards an officer has received, particularly where the officer is not called to give expert opinion testimony, but is called merely to testify as to his investigation. Fader , at 47. Normally, the court stated, such bolstering evidence would artificially increase probity, but the court determined there was no error because defense counsel used the title”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If defendant had testified on direct that he had never touched any other children, then the evidence clearly would have been admissible to impeach or contradict that testimony.”
    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.