57 Wis. 2d 344 - Wold v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

139

cited by 139 later decisions

states following

August 2018

most recently cited

137 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 124 Wis. 2d 525 - State v. Dyess (1985), 117 Wis. 2d 701 - State v. Woods (1984)

137 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Harrington v. California · Harris v. New York · Fahy v. Connecticut

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

“The test of harmless error is not whether some harm has resulted, but, rather, whether the appellate court in its independent determination can conclude there is sufficient evidence, other than and uninfluenced by the inadmissible evidence, which would convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 124 Wis. 2d 525 - State v. Dyess · 65 Wis. 2d 757 - Sheehan v. State
“[N]ot all evidence which should be disclosed to the defendant need be excluded. The harm may be slight and avoided by a short adjournment to allow the defendant to investigate or acquire rebutting evidence. The penalty for breach of disclosure should fit the nature of the proffered evidence and remove any harmful effect on the defendant.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. DeLao · 69 Wis. 2d 534 - Kutchera v. State
“[E]vidence excluded on direct should not be used for impeachment unless the accused takes the stand and testifies to matters directly contrary to what is in the excluded statement. The foundation for the use of the impeaching statements must be found in prior testimony. [Emphasis added.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 77 Wis. 2d 225 - State v. Evans · 148 Wis. 2d 370 - State v. Schultz

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.