State v. Lewisohn’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
1 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably State v. Crocker (1981), 92 Wis. 2d 450 - Hampton v. State (1979)
1 district · 35 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 Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · Chimel v. California · United States v. Rabinowitz · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Remember you, as jurors, are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight their testimony deserves. You should carefully scrutinize all the testimony given, the circumstances under which each witness has testified, and every matter in evidence which tends to show whether a witness is worthy of belief. Consider each witness’ intelligence, motive and state of mind, and demeanor and manner while on the witness stand. Consider the witnesses’ ability to observe the matters as to which they testified and whether they impress you as having an accurate recollection of those matters. Consider also any relation each witness may bear to either side of the case, the manner in which each witness might be affected by the verdict, and the extent to which, if at all, each witness is either supported or contradicted by other evidence in the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Goodrich“(b) General rule of privilege. A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of his physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, among himself, his physician or psychotherapist, and persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist, including members of the patient's family-”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Moody“we do not believe the jurors were misled to assume that a mere finding of gross negligence could support a murder conviction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Crocker
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.