148 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Franklin’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 217 Wis. 2d 392 - State v. Lechner (1998), State v. Tiepelman (2006)
2 federal appellate · 84 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 Gault · Liotta v. National Forge Co. · 70 Wis. 2d 280 - Rosado v. State · 46 Wis. 2d 93 - Hayes v. States · 99 Wis. 2d 269 - Barrera 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage“The decision [in Walberg] was based, in part, on the public policy promoting finality of judgments. The same public policy applies in this instance. Franklin has been through the complete trial and sentencing process. He and other criminal defendants should not be able to question the validity of the results of this process except for clear and convincing reasons. A clear and convincing standard both promotes the policy of finality of judgments and satisfies the purpose of sentence modification, which is the correction of unjust sentences.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In order for a change in parole policy to constitute a new factor, parole policy must have been a relevant factor in the original sentencing. It is not a relevant factor unless the court expressly relies on parole eligibility.”
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.