State v. Christopherson’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 1992 · most notably Price v. State (1967), 54 Wis. 2d 61 - State v. Duffy (1972)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions
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 Kink v. Combs · Oseman v. State · 28 Wis. 2d 249 - Zweifel v. Milwaukee Automobile Mutual Insurance · State v. Camara · Parke v. State
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Defendant contends there were several prejudicial statements made by the prosecution during closing argument. It is argued it was error for the court to omit noting defendant’s objections to these statements. “It is not necessary to pursue this contention in view of this court’s decision in Zweifel v. Milwaukee Automobile Mut. Ins. Co. (1965), 28 Wis. 2d 249, 256 , 137 N. W. 2d 6 , where it was held that failure to move for a mistrial before the jury returned its verdict constituted waiver of complaints of impropriety with respect to closing argument by the adverse party’s counsel. Whether the objections, rulings thereon, or the closing arguments were recorded is of no consequence since defendant is foreclosed from raising alleged improper and prejudicial argument as grounds for reversal in view of her failure to move for a mistrial before the verdict was rendered.” 2”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The intent to defraud is to be inferred from the deliberate commission of a forgery. Thus knowingly passing a forged instrument as genuine is conclusive of an intent to defraud. Evidence that the advantage which the instrument, if genuine, would have given has been obtained, or that the injury which such an instrument could inflict has been accomplished, sufficiently shows an intent to defraud.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(3) Voir dire examinations in any civil or criminal action need not be reported unless ordered by the court. Opening statements and closing arguments shall be reported in any action upon request of a party or upon order of the court. A request to report opening or closing argument shall be made on the record before any such argument has commenced.””
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.