39 Wis. 2d 754 - State v. Hutnik’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

238

cited by 238 later decisions

states following

February 2025

most recently cited

236 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 238 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably 115 Wis. 2d 334 - State v. Pharr (1983), 124 Wis. 2d 681 - State v. Wyss (1985)

236 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 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State · Price v. State · State v. Alfonsi · Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Reedsburg Bank · 8 Wis. 2d 421 - State v. Lombardi

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

“If a judge bases the exercise of his discretion upon an error of law, his conduct is beyond the limits of discretion.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 44 Wis. 2d 540 - Beberfall v. Beberfall · State v. Walters
“[T]here should be evidence in the record that discretion was in fact exercised and the basis of that exercise of discretion should be set forth.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 139 Wis. 2d 424 - State v. Evers · 108 Wis. 2d 723 - State v. Alsteen
““(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.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 44 Wis. 2d 590 - Krause v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance · 41 Wis. 2d 729 - Berg v. State

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.