Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 Wis. 2d 320 - State v. Larson

133 Wis. 2d 320 - State v. Larson’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
June 1990
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 104 Wis. 2d 552 - Kollasch v. Adamany · 80 Wis. 2d 445 - Milwaukee County v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations · 72 Wis. 2d 26 - Green Bay Packaging, Inc. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations · 109 Wis. 2d 407 - In Interest of IV · 126 Wis. 2d 63 - Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

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

  1. “Any statutory analysis must begin with the language of the statute itself. State ex rel. Melentowich v. Klink , 108 Wis.2d 374 , 379 , 321 N.W.2d 272 , 274 (1982). The initial inquiry of the court in construing a statute is whether the statutory language is clear or ambiguous. In re I. V. , 109 Wis.2d at 409 , 326 N.W.2d at 128-29 . A statute is ambiguous if reasonably well-informed persons could differ as to its meaning. Kollasch v. Adamany , 104 Wis.2d 552 , 561 , 313 N.W.2d 47 , 51-52 (1981). Once the statute is determined to be ambiguous, it is the court's task to "achieve a reasonable construction which will effectuate the statute's purpose." Melentowich , 108 Wis.2d at 380 , 321 N.W.2d at 275 . In this regard, extrinsic materials, particularly the statute's legislative intent, can be valuable interpretive aids. *Page 111 Milwaukee County v. DILHR , 80 Wis.2d at 452 , 259 N.W.2d at 121 .”
    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.