85 Wis. 2d 80 - Lunde v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2013
20 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 74 Wis. 2d 425 - State v. Lenarchick · 70 Wis. 2d 508 - In Re Hon. Charles E. Kading · 44 Wis. 2d 454 - Cheney v. State · 44 Wis. 2d 177 - State v. Davidson · 84 Wis. 2d 145 - McClelland 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This paragraph does not apply to rebuttal witnesses or those called for impeachment only”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is well established that even where there is no timely objection in the trial court, errors in instruction may be reviewed on appeal, even on the court’s own motion, where the error is so plain or fundamental as to affect substantial rights of the defendant. Of course, a defendant is faced with a heavy burden when he has acquiesced in the instructions given by the trial court. We conclude to exercise our discretionary power of review in the instant case and to do so notwithstanding the plain waiver of the alleged error by the defendant. In doing so, the defendant must show that his substantial rights have been affected.” Claybrooks v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 79, 84-85 , 183 N.W.2d 139 (1971).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In Christel , however, the question before the jury was not whether the defendant knew the nature of a controlled drug admittedly in his possession, but whether he knew that the substance was marijuana, as contrasted to some completely innocuous or uncontrolled substance. The very purpose of the Christel rule, that is, to make sure that there be a specific intent to possess or deliver a prohibited substance, was not at issue in the instant case, nor was there any intimation that the delivery of the controlled substance was innocent, inadvertent, or accidental. [Emphasis added.]”
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.