Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 69 Wis. 2d 337 - Jones v. State

69 Wis. 2d 337 - Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 2002
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2002 · most notably Duckworth v. Eagan (1989), 167 Wis. 2d 672 - State v. Mitchell (1992)

2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

1401975198019902000decided

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 · Brady v. State of Maryland · Richardson v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. · Detenber v. American Universal Insurance Co · Wright v. North Carolina Et Al.

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

  1. “The prosecuting attorney's obligations under this section extend to material and information in the possession or control of members of his staff and of any others who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case and who either regularly report or with reference to the particular case have reported to his office.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “To impose such a duty would create significant practical difficulties since to exercise 'due diligence' the prosecutor arguably could thus be required to routinely check for possible conviction records in all 50 states.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The test of whether evidence should be disclosed is not whether in fact the prosecutor knows of its existence but, rather, whether by the exercise of due diligence he [or she] should have discovered it.”
    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.