54 Wis. 2d 561 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably 44 Cal. 3d 883 - People v. Williams (1988), State v. Maupin (1975)
2 federal appellate · 31 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 147 - Cramer v. Theda Clark Memorial Hospital · 51 Wis. 2d 1 - Netzel v. State Sand & Gravel Co. · Fehrman v. Smirl · City of Cedarburg Light & Water Commission v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. · 49 Wis. 2d 736 - State Ex Rel. Gutbrod v. Wolke
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Experience is a proper basis for giving an expert opinion as well as technical and academic training.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . This court has long held that expert testimony should be adduced concerning matters involving special knowledge or skill or experience on subjects not within the realm of ordinary experience or knowledge of mankind. . . . The test or principal rule of admissibility of expert testimony is ‘whether the members of the jury having that knowledge and general experience common to every member of the community would be aided in a consideration of the issues by the testimony offered and received.’ “. . . The jury has the power and the duty to determine the credibility of expert witnesses and the probative value of their testimony.” State v. Johnson, 54 Wis. 2d 561, 564-65, 567 , 196 N.W.2d 717 (1972) (citations omitted) . See also sec. 907.02, Stats.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Opinion evidence of lay witnesses regarding matters within their field of expertise is generally held to be competent, and the probative force of such testimony is for the trier of the fact. The opinions are valid even though such opinions are not based upon technical or academic knowledge but upon expertise gained from experience. A lay expert is one whose expertise or special competence derives from experience working in the field of endeavor rather than from studies or diplomas. Indeed, experience in some cases may be the most important element of expertise. "Whether an opinion of a witness may be given depends upon his superior knowledge in the area in which the precise question lies."”
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.