51 Wis. 2d 659 - State v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 state decisions

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

1. ““A complaint is sufficient if a fair-minded magistrate could reasonably conclude that the facts alleged justify further criminal proceedings and that the charges are not merely capricious. State ex rel. Cullen v. Ceci, supra; Jaben v. United States (1965), 381 U. S. 214, 224 , 85 Sup. Ct. 1365, 14 L. Ed. 2d 345 .” State v. Becker, supra, at page 663.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 60 Wis. 2d 54 - State v. Elson · 109 Wis. 2d 179 - In Interest of TRB

2. ““‘. . . materiality in its more precise meaning looks to the relation between the propositions for which the evidence is offered and the issues in the case. If the evidence is offered to prove a proposition which is not a matter in issue nor probative of a matter in issue, the evidence is properly said to be immaterial. . . .’””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 198 Wis. 2d 379 - State v. Munz · 84 Wis. 2d 236 - State v. Hungerford

3. ““. . . on the 24th day of October, 1971, at the City of Madison, in said County of Dane, State of Wisconsin, did in a public place engage in boisterous and otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which such conduct tended to cause and provoke a disturbance; “1. FACTS: on the above date, your complainant, a Security Officer employed at the Mendota State Hospital, City of Madison, County of Dane, State of Wisconsin, was dispatched to Stovall Hall, located in Mendota State Hospital, in reference to a complaint of an undesirable person therein. At that time your complainant confronted the defendant, who stated to your complainant that he wished to see a patient named Cathy Comte. He indicated that he was her attorney. Your complainant then contacted Dr. Pyle, the Clinical Director of Mendota State Hospital, and was told that the defendant did not have permission to be present in the ward. The defendant then stated to your complainant that it would take physical force to remove him, and that an arrest was necessary. Your complainant informed the defendant that he must remove himself from the ward and if he failed to so do he would be arrested. Thereafter, Officer Gerl of the Madison Police Department arrived and again asked defendant to leave and the defendant again refused, stating that physical force would be necessary to remove him from the ward. There after., your complainant and Officer Gerl took the defendant by the arm and escorted him from the■ building. During”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 60 Wis. 2d 54 - State v. Elson