107 Wis. 2d 31 - State v. Novak’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably State v. Orr (1985), 5 Va. App. 143 - Sargent v. Commonwealth (1987)
3 federal appellate · 23 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1202
Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Marks v. United States · Argersinger v. Hamlin · Burgett v. Texas · Scott v. Illinois
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The issue in this case is: Does imposition of five days incarceration as punishment for having been twice convicted within a five year period of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, violate defendant's constitutional rights under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution, where the first conviction was obtained under a municipal ordinance and the defendant did not have an attorney at that time. We hold that the constitutional rights of a defendant represented by counsel in proceedings leading to a second conviction of violating section 346.63(1), Stats., are not violated when he is incarcerated pursuant to section 346.65(2)(a)(2), Stats. 1979-80, even though he did not have counsel in the proceedings leading to his initial conviction which subjected him to a civil forfeiture. [ 318 N.W. 2d at 365-366 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(2) Any person violating s. 346.63(1) [operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant]: (a) Shall forfeit not less than $150 nor more than $300, except as provided in par. (b) or (c). (b) Shall be fined not less than $300 nor more than $1,000 and imprisoned not less than 5 days nor more than 6 months if the total of revocations under s. 343.-305 and convictions under s. 346.63(1) or a local ordinance in conformity therewith, or s. 346.63(2) or 940.25, or s. 940.-09 where the offense involved the use of a vehicle, equals 2 in a 5-year period, except that revocations or convictions arising out of the same incident or occurrence shall be counted as one. The 5-year period shall be measured from the dates of the refusals or violations which resulted in the revocation or convictions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rationale underlying this 'narrowest grounds' interpretation of plurality decisions is that it constitutes a least common denominator upon which all of the Justices in the majority agree .... However, there does not seem to be any such least common denominator among the Baldasar opinions that applies to the case before us.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.