70 Wis. 2d 22 - Peters v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably 153 Wis. 2d 493 - State v. Poellinger (1990), 124 Wis. 2d 681 - State v. Wyss (1985)
2 federal appellate · 88 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 Chambers v. Mississippi · Roviaro v. United States · Washington v. Texas · Kastigar v. United States · In re Oliver
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen circumstantial evidence is relied upon, this evidence must be sufficiently strong to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This does not mean that, if any of the evidence brought forth at trial suggests innocence, the jury cannot find the defendant guilty. The function of the jury is to decide which evidence is credible and which is not, and how conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved. The jury can thus, within the bounds of reason, reject testimony suggestive of innocence. The rule that the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable theory of innocence refers to the evidence which the jury could have believed and relied upon to support its verdict.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Whoever knowingly resists or obstructs an officer while such officer is doing any act in an official capacity and with lawful authority, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. (2) In this section: (a) "Obstructs" includes without limitation knowingly giving false information to the officer.. . 'with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duty....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he statute permits conviction for obstruction of an officer under circumstances where efforts to intentionally mislead an officer may be involved_”
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.