74 Wis. 2d 107 - Hoppe v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably 124 Wis. 2d 681 - State v. Wyss (1985), 91 Wis. 2d 134 - Holland v. State (1979)
1 federal appellate · 39 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 Berger v. United States · Irvin v. Dowd · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Rideau v. Louisiana · 24 Wis. 2d 527 - State v. Nutley
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The factors which this court is obliged to consider in determining whether a change of venue ought to have been granted because of community prejudice are outlined in McKissick v. State, [ 49 Wis. 2d 537, 545-46 , 182 N.W.2d 282, 286 (1971)]: "The inflammatory nature of the publicity; the degree to which the adverse publicity permeated the area from which the jury panel would be drawn; the timing and specificity of the publicity; the degree of care exercised, and the amount of difficulty encountered, in selecting the jury; the extent to which the jurors were familiar with the publicity; and the defendant's utilization of the challenges, both peremptory and for cause, available to him on voir dire. In addition, the courts have also considered the participation of the state in the adverse publicity as relevant, as well as the severity of the offense charged and the nature of the verdict returned."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a motion for mistrial on the grounds of improper prosecutorial conduct is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed by this court unless there is evidence of abuse of discretion and prejudice to the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The district attorney on occasion used inappropriate and unlawyerlike language in respect to Hoppe and Holland. Specifically, he referred to them as ‘those birds.’ He also indulged in inappropriate language when he criticized defense counsel’s efforts to secure an answer from a witness. These statements, however, did not go to Hoppe’s guilt. In each case defense counsel’s objection was sustained, and at one point the district attorney was admonished by the court. The district attorney’s epithets were not those of an experienced professional, but they were not conscious or deliberate attempts to malign or prejudice Hoppe. We do not deem these remarks so prejudicial as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. The defense counsel is to be commended for his prompt objections. The trial judge appropriately ruled on the objections and prevented prosecutorial conduct that might have resulted in prejudice to the defendant had the prosecutor’s course of conduct gone unchallenged.””
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.