156 Wis. 2d 433 - State v. Ralph’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2019
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
Relies on 70 Wis. 2d 280 - Rosado v. State · 148 Wis. 2d 1 - State v. Franklin · 69 Wis. 2d 467 - State v. Wuensch · 97 Wis. 2d 408 - Haskins v. State · 70 Wis. 2d 62 - Jones (Hollis) 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 22 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."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e perceive no valid reason why a trial court should not be permitted to review a sentence for abuse of discretion based upon its conclusion the sentence was unduly harsh or unconscionable. If the sentence is to be reduced upon these grounds, the trial court must set forth its reasons why it concludes the sentence originally imposed was unduly harsh or unconscionable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Grindemann“A trial Court may modify a sentence even though no new factors are presented. Jones (Hollis) v. State, 70 Wis.2d 62, 72-73 , 233 N.W.2d 441, 447 (1975). The Jones Court stated that State v Wuensch, 69 Wis.2d 467 , 230 N.W.2nd 665 (1975), permits trial courts to review their own sentences to determine whether they are unduly harsh or unconscionable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Grindemann
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.