145 Wis. 2d 724 - State v. Schmitt’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2013
22 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 42 U.S.C. § 6901 (Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992) · 42 U.S.C. § 6902
Relies on Solem v. Helm · One Lot Emerald Cut Stones One Ring v. United States · 102 Wis. 2d 58 - Hartung v. Hartung · 109 Wis. 2d 461 - Hedtcke v. Sentry Insurance · 124 Wis. 2d 681 - State v. Wyss
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“examined the relevant facts, applied a proper view of the law, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The factors to consider include the environmental harm caused, the degree of the defendant's culpability, the defendant's cooperation, any economic benefit to the defendant, deterrents [sic], protecting the public and ensuring compliance. On environmental harm, the conduct of the [defendant exposed workers to asbestos. And it wasn't just a general harm because here, there were workers actually on-site, and there were other workers at an adjacent site, and there were workers who used a common road near the site. There was also evidence that some asbestos fell into areas of the building that were not demolished and buildings where people are working with that material, so by failing to properly handle the materials and not wetting it and not sealing it increased that exposure. The most serious part was the knocking down the material when the demolition began before the asbestos was properly removed; and so that would be, I agree, it's [counts] two and four, the failure to carefully lower [and failure to remove before demolition]. But the starting of the demolition before the materials were removed I think is the serious part.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) Except as provided in s. 285.57 (5) or 285.59 (8), any person who violates this chapter or any rule promul gated, any permit issued or any special order issued under this chapter shall forfeit not less than $10 or more than $25,000 for each violation. Each day of continued violation is a separate offense.”
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.