84 Wis. 2d 166 - Virgil v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably 101 Wis. 2d 441 - State v. Baldwin (1981), 98 Wash. 2d 140 - State v. Parris (1982)
89 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 Wainwright v. Sykes · United States v. Atkinson · 76 Wis. 2d 1 - Turner v. State · 77 Wis. 2d 50 - Christensen v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co. · 70 Wis. 2d 743 - Lutz v. Shelby Mutual Insurance
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the judge.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Effect of erroneous ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected,-, and (a) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In reviewing the cases in which we have interpreted the scope of our discretionary power to reverse judgments under sec. 751.06, stats., we conclude that the court of appeals, like this court, has broad power of discretionary reversal. This broad statutory authority provides the court of appeals with power to achieve justice in its discretion in the individual case. The first category of cases arises when the real controversy has not been fully tried. Under this first category, it is unnecessary for an appellate court to first conclude that the outcome would be different on retrial. The second class of cases is where for any reason the court concludes that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Under this second category ... an appellate court must first make a finding of substantial probability of a different result on retrial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mayo
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.