70 Wis. 2d 807 - Hough v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably 88 Wis. 2d 546 - Harrell v. State (1979), 135 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Friedrich (1987)
49 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 Desist v. United States · 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State · 39 Wis. 2d 754 - State v. Hutnik · 33 Wis. 2d 154 - Rausch v. Buisse · 44 Wis. 2d 454 - Cheney 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. This subsection does not exclude the evidence when offered for other purposes, such as proof of. . . intent. . . .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The problem for this court when no such request for instruction is made is to determine, from the record, whether it may have been a trial tactic on the part of the defense not to ask for such an instruction, out of a desire, for example, not to call further attention to the prior act. This court has consistently held that no sua sponte instruction need be given under circumstances where failure of a defendant to request an instruction may reasonably be part of a trial tactic, recently in the case of Watson v. State (1974), 64 Wis. 2d 264 , 219 N.W.2d 398 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Payano““The defense challenges the right of the state to have introduced the evidence of prior statements through cross-examination of the defendant, and later in rebuttal by putting into evidence the testimony of the fifteen-year old girl. In a case presenting similar facts, this court has held that such a sequence of cross-examination and rebuttal testimony is a proper order of proof. Parham v. State (1972), 53 Wis.2d 458 , 192 N.W.2d 838 .”
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.