147 Wis. 2d 123 - State v. Halbert’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably 158 Wis. 2d 458 - State v. Johnson (1990), 176 Wis. 2d 1101 - State v. Speer (1993)
28 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. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 994 · 35 U.S.C. § 303 (§ 1 of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980)
Relies on J. Gordon Turnbull, Inc. v. Commissioner · 49 Wis. 2d 263 - McCleary v. State · 124 Wis. 2d 525 - State v. Dyess · 131 Wis. 2d 246 - State v. Bangert · 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]here shall be no right to appeal on the basis of the trial court's decision to render a sentence that does not fall within the sentencing guidelines.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] trial court's compliance or non-compliance with sec. 973.012, Stats. [use of sentencing guidelines], is not an appellate issue ... because the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction. Id. (Footnote omitted).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Inventive counsel may attempt to disguise appeals that are, in reality, based on "the trial court's decision to render a sentence that does not fall within the sentencing guidelines," sec. 973.012, Stats., in the garb of "abuse of discretion" or "error-laden form" and the like. To permit appeals under those circumstances would not only ignore the clear legislative mandate against these appeals but would transform sentencing guidelines from tools whose usefulness appropriately varies with the circumstances into mere rigid recipes. This would ultimately reduce, not increase, fairness by obliterating McCleary's emphasis on individualized sentencing. As explained by Chief Justice Heffernan, who dissented from the court's refusal to assume responsibility for the promulgation of the sentencing guidelines, appellate review of sentences should focus on the McCleary standards and not on "whether a guideline was followed."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.