118 Wis. 2d 502 - State v. Muehlenberg’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2019
18 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 Grayned v. City of Rockford · Kolender v. Lawson · South Dakota v. Neville · Breithaupt v. Abram · 35 Cal. 3d 257 - Burg v. Municipal Court
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Legislative enact ments are presumed constitutional, and this court has stated that it 'will sustain a statute against attack if there is any reasonable basis for the exercise of legislative power.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“of THC in one's blood would clearly indicate to a person of ordinary intelligence that driving with any amount of THC in his or her blood would violate the statute. ¶22 Second, Harrison argues Muehlenberg supports a conclusion that WIS. STAT . § 346.63(1)(am) is unconstitutionally vague. In that case, the defendant argued a statute prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .10% or more was unconstitutionally vague because it was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
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.