Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 Wis. 2d 662 - State v. MacEmon

113 Wis. 2d 662 - State v. MacEmon’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably 162 Wis. 2d 940 - In Interest of JAL (1991), State v. Harbor (2011)

64 state decisions

2201983199020002010decided

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 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary v. State · 39 Wis. 2d 754 - State v. Hutnik · 70 Wis. 2d 179 - Ocanas v. State · 70 Wis. 2d 280 - Rosado v. State · 93 Wis. 2d 278 - Elias 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A] fact or set of facts highly relevant to the imposition of sentence, but not known to the trial judge at the time of original sentencing, either because it was not then in existence or because, even though it was then in existence, it was unknowingly overlooked by all of the parties.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “should not reduce a sentence on 'reflection' alone or simply because it has thought the matter over and has second thoughts. It must base its modification on 'new factors' brought to its attention.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “strong policy against interference with the discretion of the trial court in passing sentence.”
    2 later decisions 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.