53 Wis. 2d 699 - State v. Driscoll’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 54 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . The test of overbreadth is whether the language of the section is so broad as to discourage conduct expressly protected by the constitution, i.e., conduct the state has no right to prohibit. . . . . The normal and reasonable meaning of the language must be found so broad that its sanctions apply to constitutionally protected conduct which the state is not entitled to regulate before a statute can be faulted for overbreadth. State v. Starks (1971), 51 Wis. 2d 256, 259 , 260 185 N. W. 2d 245 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Wis. 2d 687 - State v. Neumann · 73 Wis. 2d 400 - State v. Killory

2. ““• • • [W]e think the answer lies in the adoption of Rule 303 of the American Law Institute Model Code of Evidence. This rule balances relevancy against prejudice and provides: “‘Rule 303. Discretion op judge to exclude admissible EVIDENCE. “‘(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/ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 64 Wis. 2d 62 - Hemauer v. State

3. ““Since no action for divorce or legal separation was pending and the conference with the social worker was not at the behest of a family court commissioner, sec. 247.081, Stats., is not applicable. While it is argued this situation has all the earmarks of a situation which calls for testimonial confidentiality, we cannot give the section such a liberal construction as would change the express language of its scope and applicability. Lukaszewicz v. Concrete Research, Inc. (1969), 43 Wis.2d 335, 342 , 168 N.W.2d 581 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 75 Wis. 2d 190 - Davison v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance