76 Wis. 2d 1 - Turner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably 96 Wis. 2d 48 - State v. Rabe (1980), 91 Wis. 2d 134 - Holland v. State (1979)
6 federal appellate · 81 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 53 Wis. 2d 218 - Bautista v. State · 70 Wis. 2d 508 - In Re Hon. Charles E. Kading · 62 Wis. 2d 730 - State v. Stanislawski · 60 Wis. 2d 683 - State v. Cydzik · 62 Wis. 2d 577 - State Ex Rel. Hussong v. Froelich
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The second element of this offense requires that the defendant’s conduct was of such a character that it evinced a “depraved mind regardless of human life.” “Depraved mind regardless of human life” does not mean that the mind of the defendant must have been diseased or that he must have had a mental disorder generally described as insanity or feeblemindedness. The depravity of mind referred to exists when the conduct endangering the safety of another demonstrates an utter lack of concern for the life and safety of another and for which conduct there is no justification or excuse. It is not necessary that there be an intent to endanger the safety of another, but it is sufficient if the safety of another is endangered by conduct imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life. (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The test is not whether this court or any of the members thereof are convinced beyond reasonable doubt, but whether this court can conclude the trier of facts could, acting reasonably, be so convinced by evidence it had a right to believe and accept as true. A criminal conviction can stand based in whole or in part upon circumstantial evidence. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence is for the trier of fact. In reviewing the evidence to challenge a finding of fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding. Reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence can support a finding of fact and, if more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, the inference which supports the finding is the one that must be adopted. Our review of the record in response to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is so limited by these rules.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“conduct imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life.” Sec. 941.30, Stats. The evidence was undisputed that the defendant turned on his headlights and swerved to avoid the squad car on the one- way street, and that he sounded his horn and braked in an attempt to avoid colliding with the other vehicle. In light of these facts, the court held that the”
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.