84 Wis. 2d 325 - Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Lambrecht v. Estate of Kaczmarczyk (2001), 119 Wis. 2d 871 - In Interest of PAK (1984)
50 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 Gerstein v. Pugh · Barber v. Page · 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary v. State · 50 Wis. 2d 702 - Bertrang v. State · 155 Ind. App. 361 - King v. State
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here is no constitutional right to confront adverse witnesses at a preliminary examination. However, in Wisconsin an accused is by statute given the right to confront witnesses at this stage. [Citations omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In admitting these reports into evidence at the-preliminary examination, the court relied on sec. 908.03(6), Stats., the so-called business records exception. This exception allows the introduction of documents made in the course of a regularly conducted activity, which includes police reports. When the report contains out-of-court assertions by others, an additional level of hearsay is contained in the report and an exception for that hearsay must also be found. Sec. 908.05, Stats. That is, the re ports cannot establish more than their maker could if he was testifying in court on their subject matter. Thus, defendant’s hearsay objection is not to the details of which the officer had personal knowledge but to the repetition of declarations made by Hurst to the officer over the phone. The business records exception does not allow admission of this second level of hearsay.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(5) All witnesses shall be sworn and their testimony reported by a phonographic reporter. The defendant may cross-examine witnesses against him, and may call witnesses on his own behalf who then are subject to cross-examination.”
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.