Price v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably 39 Wis. 2d 754 - State v. Hutnik (1968), 70 Wis. 2d 179 - Ocanas v. State (1975)
3 federal appellate · 75 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Giles v. State of Maryland · Namet v. United States · Miller v. Pate
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) The judge may in his discretion exclude evidence if he finds that its probative value is outweighed by the risk that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time, or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice or of confusing the issues or of misleading the jury, or (c) unfairly surprise a party who has not had reasonable ground to anticipate that such evidence would be offered. “(2) All Rules stating evidence to be admissible are subject to this Rule unless the contrary is expressly stated.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Defendant urges this court to grant a new trial because certain allegedly prejudicial statements were made by the prosecution during closing argument. Without reaching the merits of this question, the argument must be rejected because it is clear that trial counsel did not object at any time to the statements of the prosecutor, nor did he move for a mistrial during or at the close of the argument. In State v. Christopherson (1967), 36 Wis. 2d 574 , 153 N. W. 2d 631 (October 31, 1967), defendant made a similar argument. The court summarily rejected the contention: . . . .” 5”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“He [defendant] contends that under that rule [Rule 303] the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probativeness; hence, it should be excluded. "However the rule (303) leaves that decision to the trial judge, and . . . we cannot say that the evidence of the occurrence herein was of so little probative value as contrasted to its possible prejudicial effect that the trial judge abused his discretion in letting it in.”
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.