Krahn v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2022
12 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 45 Wis. 2d 111 - Rabata v. Dohner · Gardner v. Pereboom · Ferguson v. Hurford · Krizak v. W. C. Brooks & Sons, Inc. · Campbell v. Clark
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Rule 703. Bases of opinion testimony by experts. “The facts or data in the particular ease upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.” “Rule 704. Opinion on ultimate issue. “Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.” “Rule 705. Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion. “The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reed v. Hunter““ * * * While we will agree that [the prospective juror] in some of his responses was somewhat vacillating, when the voir dire is considered as a whole we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in concluding that the juror would not be unfair or partial in his deliberations.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Summers 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.