53 Wis. 2d 734 - State v. Hunt’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 2002 · most notably 136 Wis. 2d 222 - State v. Clappes (1987), 175 Wis. 2d 653 - State v. Echols (1993)
48 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 Fikes v. State of Alabama · State Ex Rel. Goodchild v. Burke · Leyvas v. United States · Huebner v. State · State v. Stevens
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This court has recognized that a person can be detained for a period of time after his arrest in order for authorities to determine whether to release the suspect or to make a formal complaint. Phillips v. State (1966), 29 Wis. 2d 521, 534 , 139 N. W. 2d 41 . The detention may also continue to allow the authorities to check out the story related by either the accused or the complaining witness. State v. Fransisco (1950), 257 Wis. 247 , 43 N. W. 2d 38 .” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The essential question, in determining the voluntariness of a confession, is whether the confession was coerced, or the product of improper pressures exercised by the police. To be admissible into evidence, a confession must be the voluntary product of a free and unconstrained will, reflecting deliberateness of choice.” See also: State v. Hoyt (1964), 21 Wis. 2d 284, 294 , 128 N. W. 2d 645 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““If the witnesses overstepped their hounds in testifying that a particular hair came from a particular cat or person, their testimony was subject to impeachment in the eyes of the jury.” (P. 749)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.