75 Wis. 2d 575 - State v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 99 state decisions

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

1. “"(W)hether the witness is unavailable and the prosecution has made good faith and reasonable efforts to procure the witness; whether the evidence has high standards of assurance of reliability or trustworthiness; . . . whether the statements introduced are subject to divergent views; whether there is high probability of assurance that the cross examination of the witness would not cast any doubts on the admitted statements; . . . whether the defendant had been afforded prior opportunities for cross examination of the witness; whether the evidence is collateral or probative of an element of the crime; whether the evidence ties the defendant directly to the crime; and whether the practical considerations of convenience and speedy trials outweigh the inconvenience of producing the witness." State v. Olson , 75 Wis.2d 575 , 589-91 , 250 N.W.2d 12 , 19-20 (1977) (footnotes omitted).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 94 Wis. 2d 450 - Muller v. State · 103 Wis. 2d 152 - State v. Dorcey

2. ““The reviewing court can examine the evidence only sufficiently to discover whether there was any substantial ground for the exercise of judgment by the committing magistrate. When the reviewing court has discovered that there is competent evidence for the judicial mind of the examining magistrate to act on in determining the existence of the essential facts, it has reached the limit of its jurisdiction and cannot go beyond that and weigh the evidence.” 7 Hussong at 62 Wis.2d 583 , Olson at 75 Wis.2d 584 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 90 Wis. 2d 58 - State v. Sirisun · 103 Wis. 2d 564 - State v. Copening

3. “A complaint must state facts sufficient in themselves or admitting to reasonable inferences which are sufficient in themselves or admitting to reasonable inferences which are sufficient to establish probable cause. . . .The term, 'probable cause,' contemplates the existence of facts and circumstances which would incite an honest belief in a reasonable man, acting under all the circumstances, that the charges made are true. A complaint is sufficient if a fair-minded magistrate could reasonably conclude that the facts alleged justify further criminal proceedings and that the charges are not merely capricious.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 231 Wis. 2d 293 - County of Jefferson v. Renz · 106 Wis. 2d 185 - State v. Hoffman