76 Wis. 2d 72 - Sanford v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently May 2002 · most notably 160 Wis. 2d 722 - State v. Kuntz (1991), 135 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Friedrich (1987)
1 federal appellate · 54 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 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen v. Southern Railway Co. · 34 Wis. 2d 278 - Whitty v. State · Wells v. Dairyland Mutual Insurance · State v. Stevens · 74 Wis. 2d 647 - State v. Tarrell
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““where the lapsed time is so great as to negative all rationale or logical connection between the facts sought to be proved and the remote evidence offered in proof thereof.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. T.W. · State v. TW“... [A]ny issue as to remoteness of the prior incident is almost completely diffused by the fact that during the time gap between the prior incident and the rape, defendant was in confinement in a correctional institution.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. T.W. · State v. TW“Our court has held that the probative value of a prior incident “depends in part upon its nearness in time, place, and circumstances to the alleged crime or element sought to be proved.” Remoteness in point of time does not necessarily render evidence irrelevant “. . . but it may do so where the lapsed time is so great as to negative all rational or logical connection between the fact sought to be proved and the remote evidence offered in proof thereof.” In the case before us, the trial court held that the evidence of the prior incident, one and one-half years earlier in point of time, was not so remote in time as to render it without probative value. We agree with that finding, but also not that any issue as to remoteness of the prior incident is almost completely defused by the fact that during the time gap between the prior incident and the rape, defendant was in confinement in a correctional institution. Thus the defendant returned to the same neighborhood to repeat the same plan or pattern of conduct at very nearly his earliest opportunity so to do. With the element of opportunity to repeat added, the time span between the prior incident and the present criminal offense becomes a matter of days, not months or years.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Walsh
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.