101 Wis. 2d 413 - Manson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 101 state decisions

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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. . . Force and threat of imminent use of force comprise one conceptual grouping under the `conceptual grouping' doctrine set forth in Gipson. State v. Baldwin, 101 Wis.2d 441, 450 , 304 N.W.2d 742 (1981). The essence of the offense of robbery is compelling the owner to part with his property under compulsion resulting from defendant's conduct directed against the person of the owner or against another who is in the owner's presence. "The court concludes that requiring the jurors to decide whether the taking was accomplished by `using force against the person of the owner with intent thereby to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance to the taking or carrying away of the property,' sec. 943.32 (1) (a), Stats. 1979-80, or `by threatening the imminent use of force against the person of the owner or of another who is present with intent thereby to compel the owner to acquiesce in the taking or carrying away of the property,' sec. 943.32 (1) (a), would raise characterization problems which the courts in Gipson and in Holland correctly noted should be avoided. The jury should not be instructed to draw a line finer than that which the human conduct sought to be defined will realistically permit. The jury should not be obliged to decide between two statutorily prohibited ways of committing the crime if the two ways are practically indistinguishable.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Russell · 109 Wis. 2d 446 - State v. Giwosky

2. “(1) the language of the statute; (2) the legislative history and context of the statute; (3) the nature of the proscribed conduct; and (4) the appropriateness of multiple punishment for the conduct.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 127 Wis. 2d 155 - State v. Tappa · 177 Wis. 2d 305 - State v. Seymour

3. “'common sense reading of the statute' that will give effect to 'the object of the legislature' and produce a result that is 'reasonable and fair to offenders and society.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 219 Wis. 2d 739 - State v. Anderson · 177 Wis. 2d 305 - State v. Seymour