104 Wis. 2d 678 - State v. Vick’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably 128 Wis. 2d 110 - State v. Holt (1985), 152 Wis. 2d 113 - State v. McManus (1989)
63 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 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Morissette v. United States · Sandstrom v. Montana · Cupp v. Naughten
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to fully and fairly inform the jury of the rules of law applicable to the case and to assist the jury in making a reasonable analysis of the evidence.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““1. Operation of motor vehicles by persons who are under the influence of an intoxicant or have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.1% or more seriously threatens the public safety and welfare. “2. Persons who operate motor vehicles while under the influence of an intoxicant or having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.1% or more do so in disregard of the safety and welfare of both themselves and other members of' the driving public and of the laws of this state. “3. Penalties are an important and necessary element in deterring the operation of motor vehicles by those persons. “4. A substantial number of persons who operate motor vehicles while intoxicated or having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.1% or more are in need of treatment or education or both to prevent further offenses related to the use of intoxicants. “(b) The legislature intends by passage of this act: “1. To provide maximum safety for all users of the highways of this state. “2. To provide penalties sufficient to deter the operation of motor vehicles by persons who are intoxicated or have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.1% or more. “3. To deny the privileges of operating motor vehicles to persons who have operated their motor vehicles while intoxicated or having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.1% or more. “4. To encourage the vigorous prosecution of persons who operate motor vehicles while intoxicated or having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.1% or more. “5. To promote driver improvement, through ap”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case that the defendant did commit an act of stabbing which caused the death of Michael Posthuma at the time and place charged in the information, and that at any time before doing such act the defendant had formed in his mind the purpose to take the life of Michael Posthuma, and that of (sic) the act of stabbing was done by the defendant in pursuance of such mental purpose, then you should find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the information." (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.