60 Wis. 2d 311 - Irby v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2002 · most notably 58 Ill. 2d 178 - People v. Gant (1974), State v. Sugimoto (1980)
32 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 California v. Green · Desist v. United States · 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State · 40 Ill. 2d 392 - The PEOPLE v. Raby · 31 Wis. 2d 110 - Lock v. State
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . The court shall exclude any witness not listed or evidence not presented for inspection or copying required by this section, unless good cause is shown for failure to comply. The court may in appropriate cases grant the opposing party a recess or a continuance.” “We point out when an error is claimed amounting to noncompliance with or abuse of the witness-list requirement, the error or abuse may in some cases be cured by the court granting the other party a continuance so he can adequately prepare for trial, People v. White, 123 Ill. App.2d 102 , 259 N.E.2d 357 (1970); Gallegos v. State, 84 Nev. 608 , 446 Pac.2d 656 (1968), or by recessing for a period sufficient to allow counsel to interview the witness .... People v. Armour, 133 Ill. App.2d 126 , 263 N.E.2d 885 (1970); People v. Knox, 94 Ill. App.2d 36 , 236 N.E.2d 384 (1968). The granting of a continuance or recess is to be favored over striking the witness. Williams v. State, 264 So.2d 106 (Fla. District Court of Appeal 1972). In order to qualify for a continuance or recess, most courts require the continuance be requested in a timely fashion and that the defendant be surprised and prejudiced by the testimony. People v. White, supra; State v. Gaines, 6 Ariz. App. 561 , 435 Pac.2d 68 (1967).” Irby v. State, 60 Wis.2d 311, 321, 323 , 210 N.W.2d 755 (1973).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““971.23. Discovery and inspection. ... (7) CONTINUING DUTY TO DISCLOSE, FAILURE TO COMPLY. If, subsequent to compliance with a requirement of this section, and prior to or during trial, a party discovers additional material or the names of additional witnesses requested which are subject to discovery, inspection or production hereunder, he shall promptly notify the other party of the existence of the additional material or names. The court shall exclude any witness not listed or evidence not presented for inspection or copying required by this section, unless good cause is shown for failure to comply. The court may in appropriate cases grant the opposing party a recess or a continuance.””
2 later decisions 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.