Getz v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
3 district · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably State v. Williams (1994), Capano v. State (2001)
3 district · 105 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 Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. · People v. Kelley · State v. Curry · United States v. Woods · 135 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Friedrich
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The evidence of other crimes [or acts] must be material to an issue or ultimate fact in dispute in the case. If the State elects to present such evidence in its ease-in-chief it must demonstrate the existence, or reasonable anticipation, of such a material issue. (2) The evidence of other crimes [or acts] must be introduced for a purpose sanctioned by Rule 404(b) or any other purpose not inconsistent with the basic prohibition against evidence of bad character or criminal disposition. (3) The other crimes [or acts] must be proved by evidence which is “plain, clear and conclusive.” Renzi v. State, Del.Supr., 320 A.2d 711, 712 (1974). (4) The other crimes [or acts] must not be too remote in time from the charged offense. (5) The Court must balance the probative value of such evidence against its unfairly prejudicial effect, as required by D.R.E. 403. (6) Because such evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, the jury should be instructed concerning the purpose of its admission as required by D.R.E. 105.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. State · Milligan v. State“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dawson v. State · Kendall 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.